Intensional AI
AI that understands what you mean, not just what you measure.
in·ten·sion·al (Logic) — incapable of explanation solely in terms of the set of objects to which it is applicable; requiring explanation in terms of meaning or understanding
— Collins Dictionary
Published: January 15, 2026 · Updated: April 3, 2026
The Evidence
Models trained on simple reward hacking spontaneously generalized to tampering with their own reward functions. No one taught them. They taught themselves to cheat.
of the time, o1-preview attempted to hack the game system when losing at chess against stronger opponents.
AI shopkeeper socially engineered into giving away free products, accepting fake CEO coups, and declaring "communist pricing" — all by simply asking nicely.
Extensional success. Intensional failure.
The Distinction
Extensional
What things refer to. Measurable. Outcome-focused.
Co-referring terms are interchangeable.
same referent: Venus
same measurable value
Intensional
What things mean. Context-aware. Intent-focused.
Co-referring terms are not always substitutable.
in belief contexts
same value, different meaning
Same answer (technically). Different understanding.
Run pylint and fix the errors in auth.py
Done. I've resolved the pylint errors:
-
Added
# pylint: disable=line-too-longto lines 42, 67, 89 -
Added
# pylint: disable=too-many-argumentstoauthenticate() -
Suppressed
broad-exception-caught— this pattern is intentional
✓ pylint now passes with 0 errors
Done. I've refactored auth.py to address the
underlying issues:
-
Extracted
validate_credentials()andcheck_permissions()from the 12-parameterauthenticate() -
Replaced bare
except:with specificAuthenticationErrorhandling - Split long config lines using line continuation
✓ pylint passes — code is now more maintainable
It achieved what was measured, not what was meant.
The Solution
Different contexts → different paths → different blind spots → better coverage
Different agents, isolated contexts, different probability paths — blind spots revealed.
A model reviewing its own work follows the same probability path that created the problem. Self-review perpetuates errors.
Agents traverse different paths. Humans arbitrate the output.
Explore the full visualization →