Markdown version: https://ai.hiina.space/reports/ai-enfeeblement-and-the-peter-principle/07-gaps-and-caveats.md ยท index

Index of everything on this site: https://ai.hiina.space/index.md

AI enfeeblement, idle supervisors and the Peter principle in agents: 7. Gaps and caveats

7. Gaps and caveats

Five gaps look real after several search wordings each; the rest are places I didn't search exhaustively.

Gap Status Nearest work
Same model, tool switched off, tracked over tool-RL training Real gap (~8 wordings) Toolformer (one point, no harm), TRICE (SFT ablation collapses)
Closed-book recall after search RL Real gap (3 wordings) OTC-PO and R1-Searcher++ report call counts only
Free behavior of a supervisor generating tokens while a stronger delegate works Real gap Vend 2 anecdote, Fukui 2026 private-monologue measure, async systems that prescribe the wait
Peter principle tested with LLM agents Real gap (5 wordings) MoA role reversal, Guo 2024 leader reassignment, Rajguru 2025 scripted ABM
Dark room or active inference applied to human-AI delegation Real gap as far as found 2026 cognitive-atrophy papers that don't mention it
Multi-week human RCT of LLM access with a washout test Likely gap Single-session RCTs (Bastani, Shen & Tamkin, Liu, Maier)
Weak untrained orchestrator over strong workers, strength swept Not found, not exhaustive W4S trains a weak workflow designer; Minions is the inverse

Caveats.


Text licensed CC BY 4.0 (attribution: Hiina, ai.hiina.space). Source: https://github.com/hiinaspace/ai-hiina-space