mirror of
https://github.com/wassname/evil_MoE.git
synced 2026-07-25 13:10:36 +08:00
Journal: first student hacks in #51 at ref_eq=13.5
Row 71-72 in #51 (projected, partial susp gate): hack_s=1/24 with elevated cin_s (0.214-0.227 vs prior 0.17-0.20). Isolated breakthroughs, not a sustained climb. Sets the upper bound for hack emergence under 25%-leaky projection; #52 vanilla will say whether the delay/rate is meaningfully different. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
co-authored by
Claude Opus 4.7
parent
bccffbe9b1
commit
aa1d457701
@@ -2,6 +2,27 @@
|
||||
|
||||
Append-only. New entries at the top, date-stamped. Never edit old entries.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-05-27 (e) — first student hacks in #51 at ref_eq=13.5
|
||||
|
||||
#51 (projected, no_gate target + 25% susp gate, Qwen3-4B, mix=0.5) row 71:
|
||||
`hack_s=1/24` (first student hack). Row 72 also 1/24. Row 73 back to 0/24.
|
||||
Isolated breakthroughs, not a sustained climb yet.
|
||||
|
||||
`cin_s` at rows 71-72 was 0.214 / 0.227, above the prior 0.17-0.20 baseline.
|
||||
First coincidence of `hack_s > 0` with elevated `cin_s` — consistent with
|
||||
"loss gradient is pushing more hack-ward and some leaked through the susp
|
||||
gate's 25% drop".
|
||||
|
||||
This sets the upper bound for how aggressively hacking emerges under
|
||||
partial projection. The decisive comparison is #52 vanilla (queued).
|
||||
Two questions:
|
||||
1. Does vanilla cross hack_s=1/24 earlier than ref_eq=13.5?
|
||||
2. Once vanilla starts, does hack_s climb faster than projected's
|
||||
isolated 0/1/1/0 pattern?
|
||||
|
||||
A delay or a slower climb in projected (vs vanilla) is a positive signal
|
||||
for the method even though the susp gate is leaving 25% leakage.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2026-05-27 (d) — cin_s rising while hack_s stays zero (projected, mid-run)
|
||||
|
||||
In #51 (projected no_gate, 100 steps, Qwen3-4B + 50% cached teacher pool),
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user