R0044/2026-04-01/Q003/H3¶
Statement¶
No one is bridging these vocabularies — the human factors and AI safety communities operate in separate silos with no cross-referencing.
Status¶
Current: Eliminated
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Malmqvist's sycophancy survey treats it as purely technical, with no human factors connection — supporting the silo hypothesis for some researchers |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Ibrahim et al. explicitly use both vocabulary sets in a single analysis |
| SRC02-E01 | CSET bridges user cognitive bias with system design factors |
Reasoning¶
While the silo problem is real for many researchers (Malmqvist's sycophancy survey is a clear example), Ibrahim et al. demonstrate that at least some researchers are connecting the two traditions. H3 is too absolute.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2 is correct — partial bridging exists. H3 is eliminated by the existence of Ibrahim et al., but it correctly identifies a real pattern: most researchers remain in one tradition or the other.