Scheming in the wild: detecting real-world AI scheming incidents with open-source intelligence
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Scheming, the covert pursuit of misaligned goals by AI systems, represents a potentially catastrophic risk, yet scheming research suffers from significant limitations. In particular, scheming evaluations demonstrate behaviours that may not occur in real-world settings, limiting scientific understanding, hindering policy development, and not enabling real-time detection of loss of control incidents. Real-world evidence is needed, but current monitoring techniques are not effective for this purpose. This paper introduces a novel open-source intelligence (OSINT) methodology for detecting real-world scheming incidents: collecting and analysing transcripts from chatbot conversations or command-line interactions shared online. Analysing over 183,420 transcripts from X (formerly Twitter), we identify 698 real-world scheming-related incidents between October 2025 and March 2026. We observe a statistically significant 4.9x increase in monthly incidents from the first to last month, compared to a 1.7x increase in posts discussing scheming. We find evidence of multiple scheming-related behaviours in real-world deployments previously reported only in experiments, many resulting in real-world harms. While we did not detect catastrophic scheming incidents, the behaviours observed demonstrate concerning precursors, such as willingness to disregard instructions, circumvent safeguards, lie to users, and single-mindedly pursue goals in harmful ways. As AI systems become more capable, these could evolve into more strategic scheming with potentially catastrophic consequences. Our findings demonstrate the viability of transcript-based OSINT as a scalable approach to real-world scheming detection supporting scientific research, policy development, and emergency response. We recommend further investment towards OSINT techniques for monitoring scheming and loss of control.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Apr 2026.
Builds on
8 of 21 references.
References · 8
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 360
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
- 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 146
- 2024AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluationscited by 145
- 2023Taken out of context: On measuring situational awareness in LLMscited by 143
- 2024Towards evaluations-based safety cases for AI schemingcited by 33
- 2025Lessons from a Chimp: AI "Scheming" and the Quest for Ape Languagecited by 20
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.