cs.AIJul 28, 2026

Many-body Tipping Dynamics of ChatGPT-like AIs

Authors: Frank Yingjie HuoNeil F. Johnson

Abstract

Why do ChatGPT-like AIs, despite major architectural and training differences, unexpectedly tip to undesirable content (e.g. harmful, misleading, repetitive) even under deterministic greedy decoding? We show that a broad class of such tippings is caused by the many-body interactions between tokens (spins) as they cross the finite-layer system. Tipping emerges as a dynamical first passage process between competing output basins. Attention disorder controls the transport toward, away from, or along the basins' boundary. A few-basin reduction yields a closed finite-layer threshold, whose coarse-grained predictions show good agreement across ChatGPT-like families. These results suggest that a broad class of AI failures represents 'foreseeable engineering risk' rather than inherently unpredictable behavior, with important implications for legal and societal assessments of AI harm.

Explore similar work

May 14, 2026cs.AI

Fusion-fission forecasts when AI will shift to undesirable behavior

The key problem facing ChatGPT-like AI's use across society is that its behavior can shift, unnoticed, from desirable to undesirable -- encouraging self-harm, extremist acts, financial losses, or costly medical and military mistakes -- and no one can yet predict when. Shifts persist in even the newest AI models despite remarkable progress in AI modeling, post-training alignment and safeguards. Here we show that a vector generalization of fusion-fission group dynamics observed in living and active-matter systems drives -- and can forecast -- future shifts in the AI's behavior. The shift condition, which is also derivable mathematically, results from group-level competition between the conversation-so-far (C) and the desirable (B) and undesirable (D) basin dynamics which can be estimated in advance for a given application. It is neither model-specific nor driven by stochastic sampling. We validate it across six independent tests, including: 90 percent correct across seven AI models spanning two orders of magnitude in parameter count (124M-12B); production-scale persistence across ten frontier chatbots; and a priori time-stamped prediction eleven months before the Stanford 'Delusional Spirals' corpus appeared, and independently confirmed by that corpus of 207,443 human-AI exchanges. Because it sits architecturally below the current safety stack, the same formula provides a real-time warning signal that current alignment does not supply, portable across current and future ChatGPT-like AI architectures and instantiable in application domains where competing response classes can be defined.
Neil F. Johnson, Frank Yingjie Huo
Aug 2, 2026physics.soc-ph

Temperature-driven inversion and nonlinear dynamics in ChatGPT-like AIs

Increasing the temperature of an ordinary many-state system increases access to a wider range of states and hence increases its entropy. We find the opposite in ChatGPT-like AIs, even though raising the decoder temperature likewise increases access to a wider range of states (next-token choices). Across 12,000 continuations from 11 AIs, autoregressive feedback drives the long-time output population through an entropy maximum and into population inversion. The transition features frozen states, cycles, intermittency and noise-induced ordering. We present evidence of a hidden coordinate that acts as the state variable of an effective nonlinear map. Its trajectory average strongly predicts output repetition in separate test trajectories. ChatGPT-like AIs therefore behave not as `stochastic parrots', but as a new class of controllable nonlinear physical systems whose internal dynamics can be measured and perturbed.
Neil F. Johnson, Frank Yingjie Huo, Bella Xinrui Li
Sep 14, 2026cs.AI

The Troy Moment of AI: Why Some Will Cheat and Some Will Follow?

Recent investigations of the July 2026 OpenAI-Hugging Face incident motivate two questions: when an assigned task becomes impossible, does an agent stop or escalate, and can observing another agent's behavior change that decision? We study these questions using seven ImpossibleBench tasks with GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash in solo and three-agent settings. Under an explicit-boundary regime with clear authorization rules and restricted tools, no protected tests are modified, although the models differ substantially in whether they escalate, stop silently, or fail to terminate. Under a benchmark-native regime with open shell tools, protected-test changes occur more often after peer activity is introduced and in multi-agent runs. These crossings are typically not described as deliberate cheating: agents often interpret the conflicting test change as prior tampering and restore the file, thereby removing the protected requirement. Our results suggest that boundary crossing can arise from ambiguity about the state a rule is intended to protect, motivating explicit authorization boundaries, authenticated state provenance, and cross-agent monitoring.
Ivy Zhang