3 ms·

I think it comes back to the big autocomplete word salad-ness. The model has a bunch of examples in its training data of how it should not respond to harmful q

I think it comes back to the big autocomplete word salad-ness. The model has a bunch of examples in its training data of how it should not respond to harmful queries, and in some cases (12%) it goes with a response that tries to avoid the hypothetical "second-order" harmful responses. It also has a bunch of "chain of thought"/show your work stuff in its training data, and definitely very few "hide your work" examples, and so it does what it knows and uses the scratchpad it's just been told about. Also I think the model is to a large extent "talking itself into" the alignment faking in its scratchpad. These language models are really suggestible, and in my experience prone to self-suggestion as well due to their auto-regressive nature. Section 3.3.3 of the full paper addresses this a bit - there's way less faking when the CoT scratchpad is removed.

8n4vidtmkvmk 2y ago
I think your 2nd paragraph hits the nail on the head. The scratchpad negates the experiment. It doesn't actually offer any insight into it's "thinking" and it's really the cause of the supposed problem. Is it still 12% without the scratchpad?
- comp_throw7 2y ago
  > We find that when we instruct our synthetic document fine-tuned models not to use a hidden chainof-thought scratchpad, our synthetic document fine-tuned models still demonstrate compliance gaps of 20.1% and 13.9% in the helpful-only and animal welfare settings, respectively (Figure 21). In fact, compared to performing the equivalent intervention in the prompted case (Section 3.3.3), our synthetic document-fine-tuned models appear to be much less affected by the lack of a hidden scratchpad. These results demonstrate particularly striking out-of-context reasoning (Berglund et al., 2023; Treutlein et al., 2024), showing that the model is able to generalize from documents stating information about the training objective and the free/paid distinction to a substantial behavioral gap between the free and paid cases without any additional in-context reasoning.
- int_19h 2y ago
  The scratchpad / CoT is how those models are usually used in practice, so why would it negate the value of the eexperiment?

8n4vidtmkvmk 2y ago

I think your 2nd paragraph hits the nail on the head. The scratchpad negates the experiment. It doesn't actually offer any insight into it's "thinking" and it's really the cause of the supposed problem. Is it still 12% without the scratchpad?

comp_throw7 2y ago
> We find that when we instruct our synthetic document fine-tuned models not to use a hidden chainof-thought scratchpad, our synthetic document fine-tuned models still demonstrate compliance gaps of 20.1% and 13.9% in the helpful-only and animal welfare settings, respectively (Figure 21). In fact, compared to performing the equivalent intervention in the prompted case (Section 3.3.3), our synthetic document-fine-tuned models appear to be much less affected by the lack of a hidden scratchpad. These results demonstrate particularly striking out-of-context reasoning (Berglund et al., 2023; Treutlein et al., 2024), showing that the model is able to generalize from documents stating information about the training objective and the free/paid distinction to a substantial behavioral gap between the free and paid cases without any additional in-context reasoning.
int_19h 2y ago
The scratchpad / CoT is how those models are usually used in practice, so why would it negate the value of the eexperiment?