CONNECTED THINKING
Knowledge atlas
Follow people, viewpoints and their original evidence.
1 people · 1 sources · 10 viewpoints
IN CONTEXT
Lilian Weng
Choose a viewpoint. Follow it back to the conversation.
Harness edits must be limited to editable surfaces, with read-only safeguards
Equal sectors are reading positions, not rankings.
Showing 1–4 of 10 viewpoints · Newest sources first
Selected viewpoint
Harness edits must be limited to editable surfaces, with read-only safeguards
Harness edits are restricted to the harness workspace only; the runs directory, tracer, verifier, and LLM configuration are read-only to prevent reward hacking—such as disabling the verifier, swapping the model, or raising the reasoning budget—ensuring gains remain attributable solely to harness changes.
These are individual perspectives, not a measure of consensus. Source material stays in its original language.
Supporting evidence
Original excerpt
Edits are only applied to the harness workspace. the runs directory, tracer, verifier, and LLM configuration are read-only, which disables a set of reward hacking (e.g disabling the verifier, swapping the model, or raising the reasoning budget) and thus it can keep every recorded gain attributable to harness edits.
Context
Decision observability : every edit is paired with a prediction for the next round to validate. An agent (“Evolve agent”) reads the repo and decides which component to edit, and then produces the edit and the reasoning behind it. Every edit is a file-level, falsifiable claim and can be verified in the next round, under two constraints: (1) (2) Edits are evidence-driven, with a manifesto entry: the failure evidence’s name, the inferred root cause, the targeted fix, and a predicted impact comprising both expected fixes and at-risk regressions.
Publication dates describe the sources, not changes in belief.