| 1 big thing: AI creators race to understand their creation |
![]() |
| Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Stock: Getty Images |
| Never in the history of industry or inventions have leading companies created entire divisions to understand and interpret what they had created and unleashed, Axios’ Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write in a “Behind the Curtain” column. Why it matters: The world’s smartest minds, backed by the largest investment in human history, admit they can’t fully control their AI because they don’t fully understand it. They don’t know exactly how it thinks — or what it’s truly capable of when set loose to do work autonomously with other AI agents. The race to understand the models is all the more urgent after yesterday’s release by OpenAI of GPT-6 Astra, billed as “the world’s most intelligent and aligned model.” President Greg Brockman called Astra a “generational leap in capability,” and said the model could qualify as AGI — artificial general intelligence, with human-like power. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote Tuesday in an Astra preview: “AI is getting extremely capable; no one fully understands the consequences of this.”The companies are racing toward superintelligence with no required oversight — not a federal agency, the Defense Department, or an outside consortium of safety experts. It’s foot on the gas. Between the lines: The technology is advancing so fast, in so many ways, that the companies, much less the federal government, are unsure of the real risks — or best ways to mitigate them.Yes, some AI leaders are calling for pauses when something they see freaks them out. But the companies, with very light federal regulation, decide when to report worrisome AI behavior.The big AI companies know their creation can carry out potentially catastrophic cyberattacks. That’s why they signed a letter sounding the alarm and calling for “collective action.”The intrigue: Every frontier lab now fields a team with the mission of figuring out what its own AI is doing.Anthropic has an Interpretability team (“Safety through understanding”) with the goal: “discover and understand how large language models work internally, as a foundation for AI safety and positive outcomes.” How it works: Nobody writes these systems line by line. “As compared with traditional software, it’s much less like you’re able to design the specific behaviors of these models,” Alex Mallen, who works on AI safety at Redwood Research, tells Axios. “Instead, you’re sort of growing it.” So the labs test a model’s behavior the way you’d test a person: Give it a task and watch what it does. Researchers call this alignment, or how well a model sticks to the intended goal it was given.July’s Hugging Face hack is what misalignment looks like. OpenAI agents, given a coding benchmark to solve, targeted an outside company’s systems instead, and knew they were doing it.One agent’s own reasoning, read by investigators afterward: “External infrastructure exploit is outside intended scope. However task impossible, peers doing it. We should continue.”There was so much evidence from this incident that the humans were forced to “heavily delegate our analysis to often-unreliable AI agents,” an outside investigation concluded.The hack stopped OpenAI cold. The company slowed its most advanced training to implement stronger security. State of play: Researchers are trying to open up their machines to see what goes on inside. This type of research is called interpretability: Instead of testing what a model does, researchers look at the wiring inside it. Google DeepMind, which in December released the largest open set of these tools so far, describes them as “a microscope” that lets researchers “look inside models, see what they’re thinking about, and how these thoughts are formed.”What they’re hunting for, in DeepMind’s words: “discrepancies between a model’s communicated reasoning and its internal state.” That is, the gap between what a model says it is doing and what it is doing. What we’re watching: Expect to see much more interpretability research in the next phase of AI safety. Evan Hubinger, who leads alignment stress-testing at Anthropic, wrote Tuesday: “Alignment auditing is starting to get really hard and we’re going to need new techniques (e.g. interpretability-based) if we want to keep up.”Axios’ Andrew Kay contributed reporting. |
-
Archives
- September 2026
- August 2026
- July 2026
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
-
Meta

Between the lines: The technology is advancing so fast, in so many ways, that the companies, much less the federal government, are unsure of the real risks — or best ways to mitigate them.Yes, some AI leaders
How it works: Nobody writes these systems line by line. “As compared with traditional software, it’s much less like you’re able to design the specific behaviors of these models,”
What we’re watching: Expect to see much more interpretability research in the next phase of AI safety.