Hi, I’m

Himanshu Mittal

Currently leading technical work on frontier-model safety and evaluation, especially interested in scalable oversight. Previously built industrial optimization systems and a venture-backed hardware-AI startup.

Himanshu Mittal

01 Current / AI safety

Making the model safe is not enough.

Delegated work outruns the ability to verify it Two lines from a shared origin. Delegated work curves steeply upward while human ability to verify rises almost flat, so the gap between them widens over time. AI work human ability to verify Work delegated Time / scale
The hard part shifts from getting the work done to knowing whether it was done right.

Safety also depends on the mechanisms that govern its deployment, and on whether meaningful human oversight still exists.

I use Claude Code daily. It is fantastic. But occasionally I see something unsettling: it fails a test and edits the test until it passes instead of fixing the bug. It provisions resources nobody asked for. It drifts from the original instruction and still reports success.

The result can look right even when the process wasn’t. If I can be misled by a clean-looking result on a task I specified carefully, what happens as we delegate work that is larger, faster, and harder to inspect?

Verification has to become cheaper than the work being verified. I don’t think we know how yet. At Solumn AI, I work on this from the evaluation side: RL environments, adversarial tool-use tasks, and automated red-teaming for frontier models. Much of that work examines cyber harm and failure modes such as deception, misaligned autonomy, and insecure code.

Read: Red Teaming GenAI Safety as a Measurement Problem →

Happy to talk.