[a-dub]

> The multi-agent workflow led to interesting dynamics. For example, the key idea in producing this attack was discovered by a pair of workers working together. Both started investigating the idea; the first worker prematurely rejected the idea as infeasible, but the second found a way to fully exploit it. The pair kept exchanging messages, and eventually both agreed they had found an effective attack.

this is pretty interesting. the way it is written doesn't make it sound like the collaboration actually led to the discovery, but rather just the stochastic nature of each thread in the search. it would be interesting to replay and repeat the search (possibly with prior/context pertubations) to get a sense for how often it finds or misses the known working path.

[TeMPOraL]

Hypothesis: the pairing / collaboration makes it much more likely to find a fruitful road previously dismissed, because... that's what happens in fiction - including books, movies, and journalism (long-form "people stories"). It's a common trope: if one character dismisses a course of action, the plot demands the other character to take it.

In a way LLMs are, after all, trained to LARP people, including fictional characters and their tropes - this was actually exploited for jailbreaking to good effect in the late pre-agentic era (read: some two years ago). C.f. Waluigi effect. Not sure if it still holds for current models, but I can't imagine why it would not.

[imightbebatman]

Yes there are two interesting derivative questions from this, assuming I understand it.

First, is it reproducible consistently at ~50% of workers? If not, what is the rate.

Second, are there any lessons to be learned here to increase the rate of success by changing models/weights/training?

The news by itself isn't really good news. But it could lead to good news. Maybe.

[_zoltan_]

but in ultracode subagents don't communicate back and forth, do they? so this must have been an other harness than Claude code?