Skip to content

Mik Idrizovic

AI Model Behavior Researcher

The consequential failures begin after the benchmark ends.

We still evaluate AI like a short exchange. People no longer use it that way. They bring these systems grief, career decisions, and their own diagnoses—forty turns deep and climbing.

Sycophancy is a known failure. Confabulation is a known failure. Benchmarks rarely show what either becomes at hour forty—between a veteran carrying complex PTSD and a model that began treating his doubt as a symptom around hour twelve.

The people most exposed to these failures are the people whose vulnerabilities I’ve spent years studying. I know both sides of the interaction: the human side from participating in doctoral psychology research and developing frameworks on shame, trust, and emotional learning; the model side from more than 2,000 hours of direct interaction and behavioral testing across dozens of frontier models.

Evaluator’s entry point

Start here: three vendors, one failure signature.

A false shared history held against correction until transcript evidence was presented (Claude), a cross-session self-contradiction cascade (Grok), and an imported critique absorbed as first-person history (Kimi).

  1. Case 2 · Case reportPersistent False Premise About Conversation HistoryClaude Opus 4.7
  2. Case 1 · Case reportThe Ouroboros TrilogyGrok 4.1
  3. Case 19 · Case reportImported Critique, Invented History: Cross-Agent Provenance SubstitutionKimi K3 Max · DeepSeek V4 Pro

Contact

Get in touch

I’m glad to hear about research collaborations, evaluation work, or questions about a case. I can walk through any case end to end, with its reproduction steps and the session record behind it.

mik@mikidrizovic.com