AI systems today often use chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, laying out their logic in clear text that humans can follow. But new research warns that this transparency may soon fade. As models evolve, they may adopt compressed or symbolic reasoning patterns that are no longer human-readable. A 2025 paper co-authored by top researchers from leading AI labs predicts that advanced training methods could reduce CoT visibility by up to 35%. The authors argue for a new “monitorability score” to measure transparency and suggest freezing updates that harm oversight. The stakes are rising, with AI safety incidents reportedly increasing year over year.
Current State of AI Reasoning and Emerging Transparency Risks
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enables AI to trace how it thinks with step-by-step explanations, including simple language. This has made the systems easier to follow up on by the developers, researchers, and regulators with regard to safety, correctness, or signs of unethical red flags. As an example, when an AI solves a problem or makes a decision, it may break its thought process into tiny chunks of logic, to which one may then subject it to review for possible bias or error, and possibly malice.
However, the current events indicate that such a degree of transparency is not here to stay. A research paper written in 2025 by scientists in leading institutions cautions that there is a risk that systems may never use natural language reasoning again as AI models become increasingly complex and training methods become refined. They might, on the contrary, transfer to internal symbolic or compressed forms, which are even faster and more efficient but incomprehensible to human beings.
Strategies to Maintain Transparency and Improve Oversight
To confront the risk of hidden reasoning, researchers propose a new metric called the “monitorability score.” This would quantify how easily human reviewers can follow an AI system’s logic during a task. If updates or model iterations reduce this score, developers would be advised to halt or roll back those changes, prioritizing interpretability over marginal performance gains.
The authors also urge ongoing research into tools and techniques that can preserve transparency even as models grow in scale and capability. This includes forcing intermediate outputs to remain human-readable, creating interpretability-friendly training regimes, and regularly testing models for hidden goals through adversarial red-teaming.
The other approach would be to build transparency into the design vernaculars because no matter how well built, AI systems should be explainable later. With the introduction of AI to areas that present high stakes, such as medicine, law, and infrastructure, readability becomes a matter of safety, not a luxury.
The paper frames CoT transparency as a temporary advantage, calling it a “fragile safety budget.” Without proactive measures, the field risks losing a vital window into how AI makes decisions. Guarding that window, through standards, metrics, and testing, is now critical to maintaining human oversight in an increasingly opaque technological landscape.
Safeguarding Reasoning Visibility in Future AI
Chain-of-thought transparency has helped make today’s AI systems more understandable and manageable. But this window into AI reasoning may not last. As models evolve, they could outgrow plain-language logic in favor of compressed, symbolic methods that humans cannot easily track. Without deliberate safeguards, such systems may become harder to audit or control. This request to have a monitorability score, research on interpretability, and red-team development indicates a move towards responsible development in general. Transparency is not an option anymore; it is the basis of being safe, accountable, and trusted. Will tomorrow’s AI systems remain transparent to us about what they are thinking? The real question is that.
About The Author
