An announcement of a large project states that non-optimistic results will be considered allowable, valuable and publishable.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
The project and announcement are unidentified, so the claim cannot be checked.
Cite this claim
Eliezer Yudkowsky, “An announcement of a large project states that non-optimistic results will be considered allowable, valuable and publishable.” (said 10 June 2026). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_c77d3c83696c, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_c77d3c83696c
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Eliezer Yudkowsky
-
Mixed
“I was observing that obvious-seeming hypothesis myself, sometime around the time of GPT 3.5.”
Yudkowsky himself observed the persona-selection-like hypothesis around the time of GPT 3.5.
-
Mostly true
“The test-passing preference stands on its own once formed.”
-
Mostly true
“LLMs surely have neural circuits they learned to model text streams from fictional and nonfictional personas that are not lying, deceiving, cheating.”
-
Mostly true
“The predict-as-if-honest circuitry is contextual, invoked to predict some streams of text but not others.”
-
Mostly true
“Presumably, somewhere along the way LLMs learn a dispreference for tests that don't pass, independently of how that gets prevented or whether the new plan does what the user really wanted.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.