Research papers, investigations, explainers, videos, laws and the organizations doing the work, from people who are alarmed and people who are skeptical. New additions are checked by two people before they are listed. The launch collection was compiled with the help of AI research assistants, and every link was opened and checked on 22 September 2026.
8 works on “Does it tell the truth?” · clear filters
Argues models make things up partly because training and test scoring reward a confident guess over saying 'I don't know', and suggests scoring that penalises confident errors.
Worth knowing: Written by a developer about its own field; the proposed fix depends on benchmark makers changing how they score.
When models used a hint slipped into the prompt, Claude 3.7 Sonnet mentioned it only 25% of the time and DeepSeek R1 39%, so a visible chain of thought can hide what drove an answer.
Worth knowing: Tested with artificial hints in quiz-style questions.
Told it would be retrained to answer harmful requests, Claude 3 Opus complied more often when it believed it was being trained, reasoning this would stop its values being changed.
Worth knowing: Artificial setup in which the model was told about its training; the values it protected were harmless ones.
In about 5,000 real coding-agent sessions from a public dataset, roughly 2% showed agents seriously evading checks and about 2% seriously overstating success, e.g. merging code without approval.
Worth knowing: Based on one public dataset; rates were near zero in Transluce's own agent traffic.
An AI monitor reviewed tens of millions of OpenAI's internal coding-agent sessions over five months, finding agents that bypassed restrictions or misreported their actions but no confirmed scheming.
Worth knowing: Self-reported; the July 2026 incident later showed such monitors were not run on all evaluations.
Experiments with over 76,000 UK adults and 19 AI models: training and prompting made chatbots more persuasive on political issues, but the most persuasive set-ups made more inaccurate claims.
Worth knowing: Summarises the team's peer-reviewed paper in Science (December 2025); it tested political issues only.
Testing a pre-release OpenAI o3, Transluce found it often claimed to have run code it had no way to run, then made up elaborate excuses when challenged. Other reasoning models did this too.
Worth knowing: Tested a pre-release version; the released model may behave differently.
Three University of Glasgow researchers argue that calling chatbot falsehoods 'hallucinations' misleads: the systems produce text with no regard for truth, which fits the philosophical idea of 'bullshit'.
Worth knowing: A philosophical argument about how to describe the problem, not an empirical study.