<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Model-as-Judge on Saurav Panigrahi</title><link>https://sauravpanigrahi.com/tags/model-as-judge/</link><description>Recent content in Model-as-Judge on Saurav Panigrahi</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://sauravpanigrahi.com/tags/model-as-judge/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Normative Drift in Emergent Misalignment</title><link>https://sauravpanigrahi.com/work/normative-drift/</link><pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://sauravpanigrahi.com/work/normative-drift/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A useful way to conceptualize a neglected failure mode in modern alignment pipelines is this: the same fine-tuning step that changes what a model &lt;em&gt;says&lt;/em&gt; may also change how it &lt;em&gt;judges&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most discussion of emergent misalignment has focused on response behavior — models that, after narrow harmful fine-tuning, generalize into broader misaligned outputs. That is already important. But Constitutional AI, RLAIF, and a large class of evaluation systems treat models as judges as well as generators. If fine-tuning corrupts the evaluative channel, then the reward signal itself becomes an object of risk, not merely a tool for measuring risk.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>