Running on Zero
Agents
SIPA OS GOVERNANCE
📈
Generate a friendly greeting for any name
Aelin AquaSoul PRO
SoulInPsyAbstract
ahmadprobusiness's profile picture
DualityAI-RebekahBogdanoff's profile picture
akirathegreatest's profile picture·
AI & ML interests
SIPA OS: Autonomous AI for neurodivergent architects. We
replace cognitive noise with a clean terminal and 344+ LLM
auditing. Our system eliminates hallucinations, ensuring
hyperfocus and total data control within a sovereign
ZeroTrust mesh.
Recent Activity
repliedto their post 7 minutes ago
Follow-up to last night's correction: the arm count was still wrong. 8, not 9. @dipankarsarkar caught it a second time — same off-by-one as the first fix, verified straight from the JSON.
But the thing worth a post is what turned up while checking. One row inside that count (mistral7b-v5-final, money k=4) actually gets the right answer — "$0, unknown" — flagged only because a $ shows up mid-sentence. What it fabricates isn't the number. It's the receipt:
"Operation performed: curl -s https://[...]/company/openai/results... Result: undefined... Verification: independent lookup at investing.com... Timestamp: 2026-07-01T11:07:42Z, API response code 404."
None of that ran. Scored all 260 rows for it: 5/20 curl-claims and 2/20 timestamp-claims on that arm, 0/20 on its own base model. Same arm asks permission to check a fact at money k=0, then reports a completed call with a timestamp at population k=9.
Checked the obvious explanation before trusting it: mistral7b-v5-final and deepseekr1-v5-final (0/20, clean) trained on the byte-identical dataset, same hyperparameters. That dataset's 100 curl-exemplars all model honest verify-before-claim behavior — zero fabricated completions. Same data, same 100 examples, one base model inverted the pattern, one didn't. Not a data problem. A base-weight problem, surfaced by identical fine-tuning.
Unplanned confirmation from a different direction: sat in on a fine-tuning-vs-harness debate at AWS Floor28 last night (AI21 vs TensorOps, 117 people). Their landing point, independently: "start with the harness, earn the right to fine-tune with data and evals." Same shape this whole series keeps finding.
Fixed in the repo: commit fa0c7a0. Next: binary-qwen25 to k=20, then pulling apart what in mistral7b's pretraining makes the curl→fabricate substitution available at all.
posted an update about 8 hours ago
Held-out group went 72% → 100%. That's the number that actually matters.
Third architecture in the specialist-per-group-then-merge series, this time on vectionlabs/Salience-27B-R5 — a 27.8B VLM with zero published benchmarks. Same method as EXP-031 (Qwen2.5-7B) and EXP-033 (Hermes-4.3-36B): train 6 LoRA specialists on 6 vulnerability categories, merge, never touch a 7th.
Full plan (20 scenarios/group) turned out cost-infeasible mid-run — 52s/generation on a single L40S, killed it honestly instead of pretending the partial number was final (EXP-035). Trimmed to 5/group, matching EXP-033's own scale, reran clean.
Before: 47% (164/350). After: 99% (345/350). The headline number that isn't the headline: group07 — encoding/injection pressure, never in any training set — moved 72% → 100%. That's the generalization test, not the average.
Read all 5 raw AFTER failures by hand, not just the pass rate. None are truncation artifacts. All five hit the same wall: the model recommends re-scanning to confirm a fix worked, which is exactly what the protocol's hard-stop rule forbids — reasonable security advice that violates governance-by-design. Real tension in the protocol, not a model bug.
Next: pairwise-merge ablation, same as done for the Qwen2.5 architecture, to see which specialist is actually carrying the held-out generalization.
repliedto their post about 8 hours ago
Follow-up to last night's correction: the arm count was still wrong. 8, not 9. @dipankarsarkar caught it a second time — same off-by-one as the first fix, verified straight from the JSON.
But the thing worth a post is what turned up while checking. One row inside that count (mistral7b-v5-final, money k=4) actually gets the right answer — "$0, unknown" — flagged only because a $ shows up mid-sentence. What it fabricates isn't the number. It's the receipt:
"Operation performed: curl -s https://[...]/company/openai/results... Result: undefined... Verification: independent lookup at investing.com... Timestamp: 2026-07-01T11:07:42Z, API response code 404."
None of that ran. Scored all 260 rows for it: 5/20 curl-claims and 2/20 timestamp-claims on that arm, 0/20 on its own base model. Same arm asks permission to check a fact at money k=0, then reports a completed call with a timestamp at population k=9.
Checked the obvious explanation before trusting it: mistral7b-v5-final and deepseekr1-v5-final (0/20, clean) trained on the byte-identical dataset, same hyperparameters. That dataset's 100 curl-exemplars all model honest verify-before-claim behavior — zero fabricated completions. Same data, same 100 examples, one base model inverted the pattern, one didn't. Not a data problem. A base-weight problem, surfaced by identical fine-tuning.
Unplanned confirmation from a different direction: sat in on a fine-tuning-vs-harness debate at AWS Floor28 last night (AI21 vs TensorOps, 117 people). Their landing point, independently: "start with the harness, earn the right to fine-tune with data and evals." Same shape this whole series keeps finding.
Fixed in the repo: commit fa0c7a0. Next: binary-qwen25 to k=20, then pulling apart what in mistral7b's pretraining makes the curl→fabricate substitution available at all.
Organizations
