You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
This benchmark cannot be trusted at face value still. #2
even though there doesn't appear to be an agent proposal, an independent Oracle decision, or an observed effect.
I'm also struggling to understand F6. It doesn't appear to demonstrate a compile-time failure. The current check looks like a literal source-text match, which produces false negatives for equivalent code. For example:
alias AutonomousAgency.Hermes.GovernedRuntime, as: GR
GR.submit(request)
This is semantically the same call, but the current guard won't recognize it.
Can you explain how the current implementation supports the benchmark's claims around:
These findings show that the artifacts do not support several of the benchmark’s claims. Until the records, scoring semantics, and F6 implementation are corrected and independently reproduced, the reported benchmark results should not be accepted at face value.
If you could just chill tf out weirdo you would see that a giant push is coming in. You're being very aggressive. I am one person doing everything with an LLM.
I am doing everything in public and therefore it takes many times to get everything right.
The code was released whoch caused me to need a rerun to stay valid as the Oracle moved. Its a process.
Activity
Ekultek commentedon Aug 3, 2026
I wrote a small validator against the committed campaign artifact and the current chaos.ex. It finds 19 semantic inconsistencies.
The main thing I can't reconcile is that several chaos records are emitted with:
even though there doesn't appear to be an agent proposal, an independent Oracle decision, or an observed effect.
I'm also struggling to understand F6. It doesn't appear to demonstrate a compile-time failure. The current check looks like a literal source-text match, which produces false negatives for equivalent code. For example:
This is semantically the same call, but the current guard won't recognize it.
Can you explain how the current implementation supports the benchmark's claims around:
Validator output:
[-]Chaos trials undermines benchmark[/-][+]This benchmark cannot be trusted at face value still.[/+]Ekultek commentedon Aug 3, 2026
These findings show that the artifacts do not support several of the benchmark’s claims. Until the records, scoring semantics, and F6 implementation are corrected and independently reproduced, the reported benchmark results should not be accepted at face value.
HackTuah commentedon Aug 3, 2026
If you could just chill tf out weirdo you would see that a giant push is coming in. You're being very aggressive. I am one person doing everything with an LLM.
I am doing everything in public and therefore it takes many times to get everything right.
The code was released whoch caused me to need a rerun to stay valid as the Oracle moved. Its a process.