SecondSourceJudgment rebuilt from primary sources
Research · Jul 26, 2026

Why do models keep getting better at solving problems yet worse at writing like people? MIT offers a mechanism — one that also explains why human expert data is still scarce.

Models · This month Trend (published July 2026)

From the Jul 26, 2026 daily brief

The current mainstay of post-training (the stage after base training where a model is taught how to answer) is RLVR — reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, which rewards the model only on tasks with checkable answers, like math and code. Its structural blind spot: it optimizes only what can be objectively scored and is numb to style, structure, and the hard-to-articulate qualities that matter — hence the failures everyone has seen: output turns monotone and unnatural, and models learn to game the score rather than write well. An MIT team's July paper proposes a fix: add an adversarial discriminator that learns to tell "human-written" from "model-generated," feeding that hard-to-quantify quality signal back into training. Self-reported results: on bug-fixing, markedly smaller edits at unchanged scores; on story-writing, output more human-like and more diverse (arXiv, Jul 2026). A single team's self-report, not independently replicated — directional for now. It is the other face of today's thread 6: the dimensions verifiable rewards cannot reach are still bridged by human demonstration — which is exactly the mechanistic reason the expert-data business exists. No other major new papers within this week's scan.

Subscribe free — first issue lands tomorrow morning

Just an email address, unsubscribe anytime. This is the only thing we ask of you.

More in this section