These views are my own and not necessarily representative of those of any colleagues with whom I have worked on AI control.
TL;DR: It's much cheaper and quicker to just throw some honeypots at your monitor models than to robustly prove trustedness for every model you want to use. Therefore I think the most likely future involves untrusted monitoring with some monitor validation as a default path.
This post talks about two different ways of monitoring AI systems, trusted monitoring, and untrusted monitoring. You can find papers distinguishing between them here, here, and here, a video here, or you can look at this graphic which didn't make it into Gardner-Challis et. al. (2026):
Context
From when I started working at untrusted monitoring until very recently[1], I assumed that trusted monitoring was the default policy that AI companies would use, and that untrusted monitoring was an exotic, high-effort policy which would be much less likely to be used.
Now I think it's the other way round.
Full Trustedness is Hard
The distinction between an untrusted model and a trusted one exists in the map. A trusted model is normally described as one for which we have strong evidence that [...]
---
Outline:
(01:04) Context
(01:25) Full Trustedness is Hard
(04:05) Untrusted Monitoring is Just Limited-Scope Trusted Monitoring
(05:22) Cost and Speed
(06:14) Monitoring is Here!
The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
March 20th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/b5oHr5TrfQzCBZdXW/untrusted-monitoring-is-default-trusted-monitoring-is-not
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
Images from the article:
Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.
