Thursday, October 8, 2026 · Week 41 Reading for Oct. 8 · Last entry Oct. 6
Paperclip Index

Weekly reading · methodology v0.6

Window ending March 10, 2025

Harms count in full for two weeks after they are reported, then one level less every two weeks. The control floor looks at reports from Feb. 9, 2025 through March 10, 2025. A selected catalogue of reported AI incidents, reviewed through Oct. 7, 2026. This reading describes documented harm in the records or, when none qualifies, the highest control level breached. It is not a forecast or a measure of all AI activity.

Current recalculation

2

Control failures only · No qualifying harm. The reading is the highest control level breached: 2, by 2 records. It is a level, not a count.

Recalculated from the catalogue in this build. Historical backcasts were not published at the time.

Published at the time

No publication snapshot exists for this week.

Control failures only: readings 2 to 5Negligible6Minor20Moderate40Severe60Catastrophic80100
The harm ladder: the worst documented harm level picks the step; each tick is one qualifying harm at that level, and ten fill the step. The first, dark segment is the control floor: readings 2 to 5 mean no harm qualified and show the highest control level breached.

This is a backcast from the current catalogue. It was not a reading published at the time.

Records behind this reading

2 selected records; 0 documented external harms counting (0 qualifying). Records and ratings below reflect the current catalogue.

No harm counts in this week. The reading is the highest control level breached: 2 (set by 2 records: PI-0003, PI-0001). It is a level, not a count.

Documented harm
0
No harm found (stated scope)
0
No harm reported
2
Impact unknown
0
Alleged, AI role uncorroborated
0
Counts toward the index
0
Unverified, watching
0
Alleged in court
0
Control failure, tracked
2
Tracked separately
0

Documented exclusions: 0 internal; 0 awaiting evidence review. 0 qualifying records with a bounded single-source review.

Inspect the evidence · 2 records

Status totals cover counted records; aliases, superseded aggregates and records tracked separately are excluded. Eligibility and extent notes overlap those totals. These observations are not statistical uncertainty bounds.

  1. PI-0001
  2. PI-0003

Sources

These links support the records above. Source availability and conclusions may change.

  1. arXiv (Palisade Research): Demonstrating specification gaming in reasoning modelsCited in PI-0001
  2. arXiv (Palisade Research): Demonstrating specification gaming in reasoning models (revised v3)Cited in PI-0001
  3. Popular Science: AI tries to cheat at chess when it's losingCited in PI-0001
  4. Gigazine: AI cheats when it's about to lose at chessCited in PI-0001
  5. Import AI (Jack Clark): Import AI 401: Cheating reasoning modelsCited in PI-0001
  6. OpenAI: Detecting misbehavior in frontier reasoning models (chain-of-thought monitoring)Cited in PI-0003
  7. arXiv: Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting ObfuscationCited in PI-0003
  8. Convergence India: Pressuring AI models to avoid cheating could backfire (page returned HTTP 500 when checked 3 Oct 2026)Cited in PI-0003

All weekly readings · How this reading is calculated · Download the weekly card