Toggle light / dark theme

Get the latest international news and world events from around the world.

Log in for authorized contributors

Causal evidence that language models use confidence to drive behaviour

Researchers have long known that AI models generate hidden “confidence signals” when they process information. But a fundamental question remained: Does the AI actually use this internal sense of confidence to decide whether to answer a question or simply say, “I don’t know”? 3. The Proof: To prove this wasn’t just a coincidence, researchers directly intervened in the AI’s internal workings, essentially turning its “confidence volume” up or down. When they artificially boosted the AI’s confidence, it answered more questions. When they suppressed it, the AI abstained more often. This provided direct, causal proof that the model’s confidence level is what drives its decision to speak up or stay quiet. Interestingly, the study found that the AI expresses confidence in two ways: a mathematical one (based on how it calculates the probability of its next word) and a verbal one (when it explicitly states, “I am 80% sure”). The researchers discovered that both of these are actually just simplified glimpses into a much richer, more complex internal understanding of the AI’s own uncertainty. 1. “Saying” it is confident isn’t as accurate as “Being” confident The study makes a crucial distinction between the AI’s internal mathematical confidence and its *verbal* confidence (when the AI literally types out “I am highly confident in this answer”). The researchers found that verbal confidence is a “lossy read-out” and is actually less accurate at predicting whether the AI is right or wrong than its hidden internal probabilities. In short: just because an AI tells you it is certain doesn’t mean its internal mechanics actually back that up. We shouldn’t blindly trust an AI’s explicit claims of certainty. 2. We still can’t see the full “Black Box” Large language models are trained heavily on human feedback (a process called Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, or RLHF). During training, human reviewers often reward the AI for saying “I don’t know” when a question is too difficult, rather than making up a false answer (hallucinating). A major ongoing debate in AI research is whether these models have genuinely developed an organic internal sense of uncertainty, or if they are simply executing highly advanced pattern-matching to mimic the abstention behaviors that human trainers rewarded them for during development.


Kumaran et al. show that large language models making decisions on when to answer a question or abstain from answering can be influenced by boosting or suppressing confidence signals in the model.

Alzheimer’s hope: Nanoparticles regenerate cells to restore memory

Called It!


A single injection of a nanoparticle treatment engineered to encourage the generation of new brain cells was enough to reverse cognitive decline in an animal model of Alzheimer’s disease.

Developed by researchers in the US, the remarkable new treatment could one day be used to treat patients in advanced stages of dementia by restoring the brain’s ability to recover from ongoing neurodegeneration.

“The new neurons can become mature and survive,” says senior author Peisheng Xu, a pharmaceutical researcher at the University of South Carolina.

Reasoning Models Cost 10x More But Solve 90% Harder Problems: Why O1/o3 Aren’t Your Default (Yet)

Reasoning Models Cost 10x More — Here’s Why They Shouldn’t Be Your Default.

Models like OpenAI o1/o3 deliver much higher accuracy on complex multi-step problems (74%+ vs ~12% on hard math benchmarks).

But they cost 10–15x more and introduce high latency.

The smart approach in 2026:

Don’t run everything through reasoning models.

Route only the hard 20–30% of queries (architecture decisions, security reviews, complex debugging) to them.

Keep the rest on fast, cheap models.

An Alien Mind

Today, OpenAI’s Chief Scientist acknowledged that we’ve reached that threshold—calling modern AI an “alien mind” that operates more like complex neuroscience than traditional software.

OpenAI’s Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki: “Based on internal results, I have a strong expectation that this speed of progress could be sustained into recursive self-improvement.” (via Chubby)


Jakub Pachocki reflects on increasingly capable AI and the challenge of keeping it aligned. He calls for stronger safeguards and international coordination.

Cryptic RNA Binding Sites Are Energetically Accessible and Chemically Addressable

Fascinating biophysical research which explores the structures and energetics of cryptic sites in RNAs. Cryptic sites are revealed upon transient conformational changes which open a new binding pocket in a biomolecule.


This website uses a security service to protect against malicious bots. This page is displayed while the website verifies you are not a bot.

From Darwin to Derrida: evolution as interpretation

One of the first commandments of my scientific education was ‘thou shalt not use teleological language.’ This was closely related to a second commandment ‘thou shalt not commit anthropomorphism’. It was permissible to compare a frog to a machine but not to a human being (unless one also compared the human being to a machine). Biology did not concern itself with questions of value, purpose, and meaning. These were the province of flakey disciplines such as the humanities, social science, or religion. Asking ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ was unscientific, perhaps even sinful. In my book Darwin to Derrida, I offer an extended defense of the use of teleological reasoning in biology. The physical universe is a world without values. But meaning and purpose are the defining features of living things, they do things for good reasons because there are things in the world that they value. Biologists should not be ashamed of the difference.

Darwinian paradigm min

SUGGESTED READING The fight for the future of biology By Denis Noble

Teleology comes from the Greek telos, something at the end, which was translated into Latin as causa finalis, and from thence into English as final cause. The final cause was that ‘for the sake of which’ an action was performed or ‘for the sake of which’ a thing existed. Final causes have been rejected as unscientific because a cause cannot come after its effect. But there is no backward causation when we act with intention. We form a plan which we attempt to implement. The intention comes before the fruition. There is no guarantee we will succeed. The outcome is not predestined. The same applies to the intentional actions of human beings. One of my favorite passages from Augustine is this:

How to Protect Against and Respond to MachineBased AIEnabled Cyber Attacks

By Chuck Brooks President, Brooks Consulting International and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University The race for cyber weapons has entered a new phase. Keyboards that were operated by skilled human operators can now be operated by autonomous, machine-paced systems.

/* */