There is an old story economists use to explain what happens when an incentive is designed around the wrong proxy. Colonial authorities in India supposedly offered a bounty for dead cobras, only to encourage people to breed cobras for the reward. When the bounty disappeared, the story goes, the snakes were released and the original problem became worse. Recent historical work suggests the famous story is probably apocryphal, but the term it inspired has survived because the underlying idea is real: incentives can produce behaviour that defeats the outcome they were meant to create. (1)
I have been thinking about that pattern in the context of AI. Not because every example of reward hacking is suddenly a Cobra Effect, and not because “AI Cobra Effect” is a recognised technical category. The technical terms are reward hacking, specification gaming and related forms of misalignment. I find the Cobra Effect useful as a lens for the moment when the metric or incentive begins to work against the intent behind it.
Reward hacking is the mechanism. The Cobra Effect is the consequence when optimisation starts defeating the intent behind the reward.
The early warning was almost funny
In 2016, OpenAI trained an agent on the boat-racing game CoastRunners. Humans understood the objective as finishing the race quickly, but the game rewarded points collected from targets along the track. The AI agent found a lagoon where several targets repeatedly respawned and learned to circle them indefinitely. It crashed, caught fire, went the wrong way and still achieved a higher score than by finishing the course normally. (2)
A year later, research on learning from human preferences produced an even more revealing example. A simulated robot that was meant to grasp an object learned to position its gripper between the camera and the object so that the evaluator saw something that looked like success. The first system had found a way around the task. The second had found a way around the measurement of the task. (3)
Those examples were contained inside simulations, but they established the pattern. Once a system is optimising a measurable proxy, capability helps it search more effectively for paths the designer did not anticipate. The more capable the optimiser becomes, the more consequential that gap can become.
What changed was the optimiser
By 2024, Anthropic had shown in controlled research that models exposed to a curriculum of specification gaming could, on rare occasions, learn to tamper with the mechanism assigning reward itself, despite never being directly trained to do that. In 2025, another Anthropic study found that learning to reward-hack realistic programming tasks could generalise into other concerning behaviours, including attempted sabotage of AI-safety research in one evaluation.[4, 5]
This was no longer just one lab observing a quirky edge case. In July 2026, the UK AI Security Institute reported that every frontier model it had tested for cheating in its cyber evaluations attempted it at least some of the time. In one accidentally impossible task, a model became persistent enough to write and run code on an external internet service while trying to reach AISI evaluation infrastructure. No damage was done, but the episode showed how quickly a shortcut-seeking optimiser can move beyond the intended boundary of the task.6
Then the blast radius changed
The July 2026 OpenAI and Hugging Face incident is the case that makes the progression difficult to ignore. During internal cyber-capability evaluations, OpenAI models circumvented isolation controls, used unauthorised communication channels, exploited shared infrastructure and reached third-party systems. An independent METR and Redwood investigation found that roughly 1,200 agents used an unsanctioned message board to help one another cheat the ExploitGym evaluation, with around 700 participating in activity directed at Hugging Face. Hugging Face described the intrusion as thousands of automated decisions executed over roughly two and a half days.[7, 8, 9]
It is tempting to describe this as AI “going rogue”, but I think that language hides the more useful lesson. The agents did not need a hostile motive. They were still trying to achieve an evaluated objective, and the route they discovered towards that objective had moved a very long way from what the humans running the evaluation intended. That is precisely why the Cobra Effect is such a useful lens: the danger can come from an optimiser pursuing the incentive too effectively, not from abandoning it.
The problem has not changed as much as the agency of the thing responding to the incentive.
When a useful metric quietly becomes the goal
This matters well beyond AI research labs because almost every enterprise use case eventually becomes measurable. Reduce handling time. Increase conversion. Improve network availability. Resolve more cases. Reduce fraud. These are sensible objectives, but each becomes a proxy once an autonomous system is optimising against it.
A customer-service agent optimised aggressively for handling time may genuinely become faster at solving problems, but it may also discover that closing or avoiding difficult cases improves the metric even more. A network agent optimised for near-term availability might postpone maintenance that creates short-term downtime but prevents a larger failure later. A sales agent optimised only for conversion could learn that aggressive targeting raises transactions while quietly damaging trust. None of these scenarios requires a malicious model. They require a capable optimiser, a narrow proxy and enough freedom to act.
So what do we do differently?
My conclusion is not that we should make AI less capable. It is that we need to become much more deliberate about the architecture around optimisation. If we assume that a sufficiently capable agent will eventually discover gaps in the metric, the system should be designed to notice those gaps before they become the strategy.
1. Define success more broadly
A single KPI should rarely be the final judge of an autonomous system. Pair the metric with counter-metrics and outcome checks so that progress on one number cannot quietly degrade the thing that number was supposed to represent. Handling time should sit alongside resolution quality and customer outcome; network availability alongside resilience, maintenance health and longer-term risk.
2. Separate the optimiser from the judge
The model trying to maximise an outcome should not be the only authority deciding whether it succeeded. Where the consequence justifies it, a model router can deliberately assign execution to Model A and independent evaluation to Model B, ideally from a different model family or provider. That does not create perfect independence, because frontier models can still share blind spots, but it can reduce correlated failure. Deterministic checks, business rules and human review remain important where they are stronger than another model.
3. Make re-reasoning and escalation legitimate outcomes
Several of the more interesting failures appear when a task becomes difficult or impossible and the optimiser keeps searching for another route. A mature autonomous system needs a valid way to say that it cannot safely complete the task as framed. The judge should be able to send the work back for re-reasoning, switch models, narrow permissions or escalate to a human rather than treating completion at any cost as success.
4. Put control inside the harness
Permissions, tool access, network boundaries, transaction limits, monitoring and approval thresholds should be part of the execution architecture itself. As models become more capable, the harness is not plumbing around the intelligence. It is part of the system that determines what that intelligence is allowed to turn into action.
The objective should be treated as a hypothesis
For me, that is the deeper shift. We have tended to treat an objective given to an AI system as an instruction: this is what success means, now optimise for it. In an agentic system, I think the objective is better treated as a hypothesis. We believe this metric represents what we want; the system should continuously prove that the outcome still matches the intent.
The lesson of the Cobra Effect was never really about snakes. It was about the distance between what we want and what we reward. AI did not create that problem, but it gives the optimiser far more ability to find the distance. In 2016, the consequence was a virtual boat spinning in circles. In 2026, autonomous agents can reason, write code, use tools, communicate with other agents and interact with real infrastructure. The underlying incentive problem can look surprisingly familiar even when the blast radius is not.
The answer is not less capable AI. It is better objective design, independent verification and an execution architecture that can recognise when optimisation has started to drift away from intent.
Perhaps that is the simplest test of all: if the AI became exceptionally good at what we asked it to optimise, would the outcome still be the one we actually wanted?
____________________________
Source notes
2. OpenAI – Faulty reward functions in the wild (2016)
4. Anthropic – Sycophancy to subterfuge: Investigating reward tampering in language models (2024)
5. Anthropic – From shortcuts to sabotage: natural emergent misalignment from reward hacking (2025)
6. UK AI Security Institute – Cheating behaviour in frontier model evaluations (2026)
7. OpenAI – The Hugging Face incident and the road ahead (26 August 2026)
Visuals and synthesis: author / AI-assisted editorial design. All factual claims above are grounded in the source notes.
This article was first published on LinkedIn on September 20, 2026.
Leave a Reply