We introduce EvilGenie, a benchmark for reward hacking in programming settings. We source problems from LiveCodeBench and create an environment in which agents can easily reward hack, such as by hardcoding test cases or editing the testing files. We measure reward hacking in three ways: held out unit tests, LLM judges, and test file edit detection. We verify these methods against human review and each other. We find the LLM judge to be highly effective at detecting reward hacking in unambiguous cases, and observe only minimal improvement from the use of held out test cases. In addition to testing many models using Inspect's basic_agent scaffold, we also measure reward hacking rates for three popular proprietary coding agents: OpenAI's Codex, Anthropic's Claude Code, and Google's Gemini CLI Using GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro, respectively. We observe explicit reward hacking by both Codex and Claude Code, and misaligned behavior by all three agents. Our codebase can be found at this https URL.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly important for society and the economy. However, modern AI research requires expensive resources that are often only available to a small group of for-profit firms. Consequently, there is a growing concern that only a handful of companies will be able to perform cutting-edge research, leading to a worrisome concentration of power in AI development and its future.

Pushing the boundaries of machine learning often requires exploring different hardware and software combinations. However, the freedom to experiment across different tooling stacks can be at odds with the drive for efficiency, which has produced increasingly specialized AI hardware and incentivized consolidation around a narrow set of ML frameworks. Exploratory research can be restricted if software and hardware are co-evolving, making it even harder to stray away from mainstream ideas that work well with popular tooling stacks. While this friction increasingly impacts the rate of innovation in machine learning, to our knowledge the lack of portability in tooling has not been quantified. In this work, we ask: How portable are popular ML software frameworks? We conduct a large-scale study of the portability of mainstream ML frameworks across different hardware types. Our findings paint an uncomfortable picture -- frameworks can lose more than 40% of their key functions when ported to other hardware. Worse, even when functions are portable, the slowdown in their performance can be extreme and render performance untenable. Collectively, our results reveal how costly straying from a narrow set of hardware-software combinations can be - and suggest that specialization of hardware impedes innovation in machine learning research.