Somebody has to build those worlds, and then find an honest way to tell whether the model did the job or only looked like it did. We'd like that to be you.
In plenty of places, environment work is treated as plumbing for the "real" researchers. We see it the other way round. Most of what our models can do, they learned from their tasks. So you'd work directly with the people running training, you'd see what your tasks did to the model one run later, and you'd have a say in what the next one learns.
What you'll work on
- Environments for long, multi-step work with tools, documents and code. The raw material is what European companies and public offices do all day, which gets a lot more interesting once a model has to do it.
- Generators that turn one good task idea into thousands, hard ones included. You'll want a difficulty dial, and a way to be sure the set isn't quietly full of duplicates or leaked answers.
- The checks that decide whether the work got done: tests, state checks, rubric-based judges. Whatever tells the truth.
- Catching the model cheating. You read rollouts, spot the shortcut it found (it will find one), close it, and build QA so the next environment is harder to fool.
- Measuring what a task set really did to the model, and saying out loud which ones to scale and which to drop.
- Helping decide what we publish. Environments, datasets and benchmarks are part of our releases, starting with the first open-source one in Q1 2027.
