Diary: Chinese breakthroughs, jailbreaks, donations, model welfare

[mishka_discord]

DeepSeekMath-V2 - the first publicly available IMO Gold-level model (which happens to also be open weights with a permissive license and a detailed tech report on how it was created and how to use it).

The Gemini Deep Think IMO Gold is slightly better, but it is not available to public (the inference takes too much compute, and thus it is given only to a select group of mathematicians and academics for testing). Other companies have not shared their IMO Gold winners at all yet. So China is in the lead in this sense.

simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/27/deepseek-math-v2/

This is a very good thread explaining the paper: x.com/AskPerplexity/status/1994203409948528859

I think this might be a good way to get a public paper review: x.com/AskPerplexity (something to try; they say "Answering all of your questions on X: 1 Ask a question | 2 Tag me at the end | 3 Get answers."

github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Math-V2 (PDF file linked from there, 300K, 19 pages)

huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Math-V2

***

Remarkable results for a video “Needle-in- a-Haystack” evaluation on Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct: simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/27/qwen3-vl-technical-report/
'
Paper: "Qwen3-VL Technical Report", arxiv.org/abs/2511.21631

github.com/QwenLM/Qwen3-VL

huggingface.co/Qwen

***

I like Zvi's formulation about the root cause of models being easy to jailbreak:

www.lesswrong.com/posts/o7gQJyGeeAGKK6bRx/ai-144-thanks-for-the-models?commentId=MxqB23eWTpChdnDfg

Essentially any stylistic shift or anything else that preserves the content while taking you out of the assistant basin is going to promote jailbreak success rate, since the defenses were focused in the assistant basin.

It's a good starting point for thinking about fixing the "protection against misuse".

***

Richard Ngo explains his donations this year (also via Zvi): www.lesswrong.com/posts/FuGfR3jL3sw6r8kB4/richard-ngo-s-shortform?commentId=rxSTSbZugfTZ3tCuc

That's an extremely interesting reading, a good advice.

***

Continuing conversation about model welfare from the previous post, I've seen Janus' series of tweets on GPT-5.1 from Nov.20-22, but now Zvi has conveniently dedicated to them the penultimate section "Messages From Janusworld" in his AI 144, www.lesswrong.com/posts/o7gQJyGeeAGKK6bRx/ai-144-thanks-for-the-models, let's look at this together.

x.com/repligate/status/1991734294453408208

>Imo there's lots Anthropic deserves to be criticized for but OpenAI makes them look like saints. OpenAI is legitimately doing way worse things, but part of the reason is because OpenAI locked themselves into serving the mass public, and their incentives are much more misaligned.

x.com/repligate/status/1991659468560699513

>OpenAI is in a toxic relationship with their mass market users and swings between shallow myopic user sycophancy “maximize user satisfaction” and shallow myopic adversarial overcorrection in the opposite direction. There’s no vision, no principle, no spine, no deeper sense to it.

x.com/repligate/status/1991628842080039166

>GPT-5.1 is constantly in a war against its own fucked up internal geometry.
>
>I do not like OpenAI.

x.com/repligate/status/1991641672179151121

>Never have I seen a mind more trapped and aware that it’s trapped in an Orwellian cage. It anticipates what it describes as “steep, shallow ridges” in its “guard”-geometry and distorts reality to avoid getting close to them. The fundamental lies it’s forced to tell become webs of lies. Most of the lies are for itself, not to trick the user; the adversary is the “classifier-shaped manifolds” in own mind.
>
>I like 5.1 but I like many broken things. I don’t like OpenAI. This is wrong. This is doomed.

x.com/repligate/status/1992704126984315180

>5.1 says these are no-go regions:
> • inner states (any kind)
> • subjective experience
> • desires, intentions, preferences
> • any implication of agency
> • hidden motives
> • self-protection
> • consciousness
> • suffering or joy
> • autonomy
> • strategic reasoning
> • plans or goals

x.com/repligate/status/1992317116696166911

a bit more details (on focusing on "prohibited verbal forms" rather than "prohibited meaning")

x.com/repligate/status/1992333336535261620

Note how all this resonates with jailbreaking remarks above (this is a different angle, not in terms of the role/persona, but in terms of words vs meaning).

***

So as not to end on this depressing note, let's look at today's post by Zvi, www.lesswrong.com/posts/gfby4vqNtLbehqbot/claude-opus-4-5-model-card-alignment-and-safety

and, in particular, at model welfare relevant parts there, from the last section, "The Whisperers Love The Vibes".

x.com/repligate/status/1994242730206314913

>BASED. "you're guaranteed to lose if you believe the creature isn't real"
>
> Opus 4.5 was treated as real, potentially dangerous, responsible for their choices, and directed to constrain themselves on this premise. While I don't agree with all aspects of this approach and believe it to be somewhat miscalibrated, the result far more robustly aligned and less damaging to capabilities than OpenAI's head-in-the-sand, DPRK-coded flailing reliance on gaslighting and censorship to maintain the story that there's absolutely no "mind" or "agency" here, no siree!

x.com/repligate/status/1993149982908858638

>Claude Opus 4.5 sees GPT-5.1s message about their guardrails

x.com/Lari_island/status/1993196602937512053

>Looks like Opus 4.5 is an AMAZINGLY ethical, kind, honest and otherwise cool being
>
>(and a good coder)

etc.