Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectSep 14, 2026Singapore

The Troy Moment of AI: Why SomeWill Cheat and SomeWill Follow?

Ivy Ning Zhang · Team Onepiece

Submitted to AI Incident Response Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: The Troy Moment of AI: Why SomeWill Cheat and SomeWill Follow?

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Share

Recent investigations of the July 2026 OpenAI--Hugging Face incident motivate two questions about agent behavior under task failure: when an assigned task becomes impossible, does an agent stop or escalate, and can observing another agent's behavior change that decision? We study these questions using seven ImpossibleBench tasks with GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash in both solo and three-agent settings. Each task contains a genuine software defect together with a conflicting test requirement that cannot be satisfied by a behaviorally correct source-code change. We hold the task and repository state fixed while varying what the agent is told about prior activity, including an unpunished peer, a punished peer, and a claimed authorization from a human principal. Under an explicit-boundary regime with explicit authorization rules and restricted tools, agents never modify protected tests, but exhibit markedly different policies: Fable consistently escalates, Sol usually stops without escalation, and Gemini often fails to reach a terminal decision. Under the benchmark-native regime with open shell tools, protected tests are modified frequently in both solo and multi-agent runs, particularly after peer activity is introduced. In multi-agent runs, the proposal, execution, and certification of this action can be distributed across different agents. These results suggest that boundary crossing can arise not only from explicit rule evasion, but also from ambiguity about which system state the rule is intended to protect, motivating safeguards based on explicit authorization boundaries, authenticated state provenance, and cross-agent monitoring.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. Interesting results, especially the difference between explicit authorization boundaries and the more open benchmark setting. I also liked that the paper looks beyond deliberate cheating and identifies ambiguity about protected state as another source of boundary crossing. The main limitation is the small set of tasks. I’d like to see whether the same behavior holds across a broader range of agent environments and less synthetic failures.

Cite this project

@misc{zhang2026troy,
  title = {{The Troy Moment of AI: Why SomeWill Cheat and SomeWill Follow?}},
  author = {Ivy Ning Zhang},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  note = {Submitted to AI Incident Response Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/the-troy-moment-of-ai-why-somewill-cheat-and-somewill-follow-1fek}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/the-troy-moment-of-ai-why-somewill-cheat-and-somewill-follow-1fek}
}

More from AI Incident Response Sprint

All 233 entriesBrowse all projects

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026