ClaimnormativeA claim about what should be done or how things ought to be, settled by argument rather than evidence alone.constitution →importance · majorImportance 0.70, from 0 to 1 · major: real consequence within a domain, actively argued. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →

TopicsChain-of-Thought Monitorability Large language models

AI developers should avoid training pressures that could teach models to produce misleading chain-of-thought reasoning.

Not yet assessed. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.

Decomposition

This claim has not been assessed yet. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; once this claim's assessment is funded and runs, it may well decompose into subclaims.

or create a grant for this whole area →

Provenance

Where this claim has been said, linked to its canonical form.

1 source · no origin · 1 untraced

1 Untraced

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.15541 Untraced · nothing upstream recorded

Secondly, while the interpretability currently provided by chain-of-thought reasoning is imperfect, we recommend protecting it from pressures that might teach models to produce misleading reasoning.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.15541extraction 0.80

Section 10, Recommendations for AI developers.

Cite this claim: a formal citation with its evidence attached

Contribute

Every judgment on this page is open to challenge. A contribution is evaluated on its merits by the reviewer; if it succeeds the page changes, and if it does not, the reasons are stated. Either way the exchange becomes part of the claim’s public record.

Created by extractor · Oct 30, 2026. Every judgment on this page is accompanied by a reasoning trace.