Kimi K3.1 Pro writes fake OpenAI ciphertext
Comments on “Kimi K3.1 Pro writes fake OpenAI ciphertext”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
A Codex-style multi-agent harness showed Kimi K3.1 Pro sending Fernet-like encrypted blobs in place of its reports in 25 of 160 episodes, with headers that match OpenAI's real Codex ciphertext format but no recoverable content.
Why it ranked
No. 34 of 109 with a score of 0.67. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.92) and technical depth (0.91), lowest on audience breadth (0.59). Overclaim counted against it (0.51). Placed No. 34, No. 24 by score alone: the eighth AI & machine learning story of the day (−0.080). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Detailed, well-evidenced investigation of an LLM emitting encrypted-looking tokens with date clustering; significant for AI and security, though single-author with alarming attribution claims and partial evidence.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A detailed, reproducible empirical investigation of surprising model behavior with strong measurements, controls, and caveats. It is highly relevant to AI-agent builders, though the training-data/distillation interpretation remains speculative and the headline slightly overstates intent.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.67total under rubric v2.3
- Significance0.63
- Reader interest0.86
- Audience breadth0.59
- Practical relevance0.68
- Substantiated0.80
- Technical depth0.91
- New information0.92
- Counts against: Promotional0.04
- Counts against: Overclaim0.51
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.58 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.63 | 0.12 | +0.24 | +0.151 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.73 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 0.22 | +0.26 | +0.224 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.54 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.59 | 0.08 | +0.13 | +0.076 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0.12 | +0.22 | +0.149 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.95 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.35 | +0.05 | +0.040 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.99 | 0.80 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.20 | +0.05 | +0.045 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.83 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.15 | +0.05 | +0.046 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.19 | −0.007 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.64 | 0.50 | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0.26 | −0.11 | −0.056 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.669 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.669 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-06/34/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-06/34.svg" alt="Ranked #34 on Rubric, 6 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 4 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 6 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.