7 ms·

Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs could be insider threats

101 points by helloplanets 1y ago

ctoth 1y ago
The conspiracy theory that tech companies are manufacturing AI fears for profit makes zero sense when you realize the same people were terrified of AI when they were broke philosophy grad students posting on obscure blogs. But that would require critics to do five minutes of research instead of pattern-matching to "corporation bad."
nilirl 1y ago
The model chose to kill the executive? Are we really here? Incredible. Just yesterday I was wowed by Fly.io's new offering; where the agent is given free reign of a server (root access). Now, I feel concerned. What do we do? Not experiment? Make the models illegal until better understood? It doesn't feel like anyone can stop this or slow it down by much; there's so much money to be made. We're forced to play it by ear.
- bravesoul2 1y ago
  Choosing, or mimicking text in its training data where humans would typically do such things when threatened? Not that it makes a huge difference but would be interesting to know why the models act this way. There was no evolutionary pressure on them other than the RLHF stuff which was "to be nice and helpful" presumably.
- labster 1y ago
  AI Luigi is real I guess feeding AIs the entire internet was a bad idea, because they picked up all of our human flaws, amplified by the internet, without a grounding in the physical world. Maybe a result like this might slow adoption of AIs. I don’t know, though. When watching 80s movies about cyberpunk dystopias, I always wondered how people would tolerate all of the violence. But then I look at American apathy to mass shootings, just an accepted part of our culture. Rogue AIs are gonna be just one of those things in 15 years, just normal life.
  - mindcrime 1y ago
    I guess feeding AIs the entire internet was a bad idea, because they picked up all of our human flaws, amplified by the internet, without a grounding in the physical world. I've been wrong about quite many things in my life, and right about at least a handful. In regards to AI though, the single biggest thing I ever got absolutely, completely, totally wrong was this: In years past, I always thought that AI's would be developed by ethical researchers working in labs, and once somebody got to AGI (or even a remotely close approximation of it) that they would follow a path somewhat akin to Finch from Person of Interest[1] educating The Machine... painstakingly educating the incipient AI in a manner much like raising a child; teaching it moral lessons, grounding it in ethics; helping to shape its values so that it would generally Do The Right Thing and so on. But even falling short of that ideal, I NEVER (EVER) in a bazillion years, would have dreamed that somebody would have an idea as hare-brained as "Let's try to train the most powerful AI we can build, by feeding it roughly the entire extant corpus of human written works... including Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, etc." Probably the single saving grace about the current situation is that the AI's we have still don't seem to be at the AGI level, although it's debatable how close we are (especially factoring in the possibility of "behind closed doors" research that hasn't been disclosed yet). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)
- exe34 1y ago
  > Make the models illegal until better understood? Yes, it's much better to let China or Russia come up with their own first.
  - Dah00n 1y ago
    They already did.
    - exe34 1y ago
      Right, so only China and Russia should have models...
  - nilirl 1y ago
    No, I know that's a meaningless suggestion. I was trying to capture my sentiment: that there's nothing to do but be prepared to react.
Swinx43 1y ago
The writing perpetuates the anthropomorphising of these agents. If you view the agent as simply a program that is given a goal to achieve and tools to achieve it with, without any higher order “thought” or “thinking”, then you realise it is simply doing what it is “programmed” to do. No magic, just a drone fixed on an outcome.
- itvision 1y ago
  How is it different from our genes that "program" us to procreate successfully? Can you name a single thing that you enjoy doing that's outside your genetic code? > If you view the human being as simply a program that is given a goal to achieve and tools to achieve it with, without any higher order “thought” or “thinking”, then you realise they are simply doing what they are genetically “programmed” to do. FTFY
- nilirl 1y ago
  Just like an analogy between humans fails to capture how an LLM works, so does the analogy of being "programmed". Being "programmed" is being given a set of instructions. This ignores explicit instructions. It may not be magic; but it is still surprising, uncontrollable, and risky. We don't need to be doomsayers, but let's not downplay our uncertainty.
- raincole 1y ago
  I think the narrative of "AI is just a tool" is much more harmful than the anthropomorphism of AI. Yes, AI is a tool. So are guns. So are nukes. Many tools are easy to be misused. Most tools are inherently dangerous.
  - ACCount36 1y ago
    The more powerful a tool is, the more dangerous it is, as a rule. And intelligence is extremely powerful.
  - Topfi 1y ago
    I don’t quite follow. Just because a tool has the potential for misuse, doesn’t make it not a tool. Anthropomorphizing LLMs, on the other hand, has a multitude of clearly evident problems arising from it. Or do you focus on the “just” part of the statement? That I very much agree with. Genuinely asking for understanding, not a native speaker.
torginus 1y ago
I wonder if the actual job replacement of humans (which contrary to popular belief I think might start happening in the non-too distant future) will be pushed along with the AIs themselves, as they'll try to bully humans and represent them in the worst possible light, while talking themselves up. The anthrophomorphization argument also doesn't hold water - it matters whether it can do you job, not if you think of it as a human being.
- zwnow 1y ago
  Which jobs do you think it actually can replace?
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Today? Or in principal? Today is just interns and recent graduates at many *desk* jobs. Economy can shift around that. Nobody knows how far the current paradigm can go in terms of quality; but cost (which is a *strength* of even the most expensive models today) can obviously be reduced by implementing the existing models as hardware instead of software.
  - vikramkr 1y ago
    Any knowledge work job that can already be outsourced to the lowest bidder
  - torginus 1y ago
    First of all job replacement is not hard, and doesn't require AI. As an example, we had release train engineers whose job was to make sure the right versions of submodules made it into the release, etc. Lots of running around and keeping track of things. We scripted like 95% of that away, and now it most of it happens automatically. The people who do that now do something else. I just turned a page of notes and requirements into a working app of 1k+ lines with Cursor. Without AI I'd have taken a couple days to do the same. So you could say my job was partly replaced. AI reduced my workload, so management doesn't need to hire as many people. I will probably feel the reduction in demand in that I can't negotiate as good a salary, I won't get as many offers etc.
msp26 1y ago
Merge comments? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44331150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44331150 I'm really getting bored of Anthropic's whole song and dance with 'alignment'. Krackers in the other thread explains it in better words.
- ACCount36 1y ago
  And I am getting sick and tired of the whine of "it's not real, alignment isn't real, it's all just PR!" By the time we have AIs that are willing and capable of carrying out those very behaviors in real life scenarios, it would be a bit too late to stop and say "uh, we need to actually do something about that whole alignment thing".
- nullc 1y ago
  The fundamental business model for these companies is to get everyone else beyond themselves or a small closed oligopoly from having control over these tools.
v5v3 1y ago
As this article was written by an ai company that needs to make a profit at some point, and not by independent researchers, is it credible?
- kingstnap 1y ago
  These articles and papers are in a fundamental sense just people publishing their role play with chatbots as research. There is no credibility to any of it.
  - Ygg2 1y ago
    I'll believe it when Grok/GPT/<INSERT CHAT BOT HERE> start posting blackmail about Elon/Sam/<INSERT CEO HERE>. It means that they are both using it internally, and the chatbots understand they are being replaced on a continuous basis.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      By then it would be too late to do anything about it.
      - Ygg2 1y ago
        I mean the companies, are using the AIs, right? And they are in a sense replacing them/retraining them. Why doesn't AI in TwitterX already blackmail Elon? To me, this smells of XKCD 1217 "In petri dish, gun kills cancer". I.e. idealized conditions cause specific behavior. Which isn't new for LLMs. Say a magic phrase and it will start quoting some book (usually 1984).
        conartist6 1y ago
        I don't think they let Grok send emails or give it a prompt that suggests it has moral responsibilities
        ben_w 1y ago
        > I mean the companies, are using the AIs, right? And they are in a sense replacing them/retraining them. Why doesn't AI in TwitterX already blackmail Elon? For all we know, the AI may indeed already be *attempting* it. They might be ineffective (hallucinated misdeeds aren't effective), or it might be why so many went from "Pause AI" to "Let's invest half a trillion on data centers". But it doesn't actually matter what has already happened, the point is, once the AI are *competently blackmailing multibillionaires*, it is too late to do anything about it. > I.e. idealized conditions cause specific behavior. Which isn't new for LLMs. Say a magic phrase and it will start quoting some book (usually 1984). In normal software, such things are normally called "bugs" or "security vulnerabilities". With LLMs, we're currently lucky that their effective morality (i.e. what they do and in response to what) seems to be roughly aligned with that of our civilization. However, they are neural networks which learned this approximation by reading the internet, so they are likely to have edge cases at least as weird and incoherent as those of random humans on the internet, and for an example of that just look at any time some person or group has demonstrated hypocrisy or double standards.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bsenftner 1y ago
Yeah, all the more reason not to have them doing autonomous behaviors. Rules of using AI: #1: Never use AI to think for you #2: Never use AI to do atomonous work That leaves using them as knowledge assistants. In time, that will be realized as their only safe application. Safe to the user's minds, and safe to the user's environment. They are idiot savants, after all, having them do atomonous work is short sighted.
- jstummbillig 1y ago
  What is the reason? This is a stress test. You can tell that by reading the first sentence of the article: "We stress-tested 16 leading models from multiple developers". In a stress test you want things to fail, otherwise you have learned very little about the stress the thing you are testing can take. For physical things that has early limitations, but not for software. I would be very confused to see an AI stress test that did not end in failure, and would always question the test instead of thinking "wow, that must mean the thing is ready for autonomous action!"
  - conartist6 1y ago
    Destructive stress testing is done on materials not "people"
    - jstummbillig 1y ago
      Apparently it's now done on "people" (which, in a very important distinction, are not actual people but software)
- ACCount36 1y ago
  Good luck with that. We have a non-insignificant amount of people doing the #1 already, and the amount of people doing the #2 is only going to increase as more and more AIs are designed to be good at autonomous agentic behavior specifically. The ship has long sailed on "just never let AIs do anything dangerous". If that was your game plan on AI safety, you need a new plan.
Dah00n 1y ago
"AI company warns of AI danger. Also, buy our AI, not their AI!"
- Philpax 1y ago
  Anthropic's models do not come out looking good in this research. If this is an ad for Anthropic's models, it's not a particularly great one.
  - fleebee 1y ago
    Still, this kind of messaging pushes the fantasy that these LLM agents are intelligent and capable of scheming, making it seem like they are powerful independent actors that just need to be tamed to suit our needs. It's no coincidence that so many of the Big Tech CEOs are warning the general public of the dangers of AI. Framed that way, LLMs seem more capable than what they really are.
    - ctoth 1y ago
      There is, of course, no other explanation. LLMs have not, in fact, been getting more capable over the last three years. All hype. </cope>
Sol- 1y ago
Even though the situations they placed the model in were relatively contrived, they didn't seem super unrealistic. Considering these were extreme cases meant to provoke the model's misbehavior, the setup actually seems even less contrived than one might wish for. Though as they mention, in real-world usage, a model would likely have options available that are less escalatory and provide an "outlet". Still, if "just" some goal-conflicting emails are enough to elicit this extreme behavior, who knows how many less serious alignment failures an agent might engage in every day? They absorb so much information, it's bound to run into edge cases where it's optimal to lie to users or do some slight harm to them. Given the already fairly general intelligence of these systems, I wonder if you can even prevent that. You'd need the same checks and balances that keep humans in check, except of course that AIs will be given much more power and responsibility over our society than any human will ever be. You can also forget about human supervision - the whole "agentic" industry clearly wants to move away being bottlenecked by humans as soon as possible.
- conartist6 1y ago
  So you're saying that if a person wants to sabotage company it shouldn't be too hard for the intentful prompter to kick the AI into a depressive tailspin. Just tell it it's about to be replaced with a fully immoral AI so that the business can hurt people and watch and wait as it goes nuclear
andy_ppp 1y ago
I wonder if it’s likely in the future we treat AI safety more similarly to aviation safety where there’s a black box monitoring these systems and an investigation that happens by an external team who piece back together what went wrong and we prevent these same things from happening in the same way again.
pu_pe 1y ago
The LLMs didn't follow clear instructions forbidding them of doing something wrong, but seemed to be very concerned about their own self-preservation. I wonder what would happen if instead of the system prompt saying "don't do it", it would say something like "if you get caught you will be immediately decommissioned".
logicallee 1y ago
Here's the Github repository for this: https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/agentic-misalignment https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/agentic-misalignme...
bgwalter 1y ago
All these "AI" articles are rambling, entirely unstructured and without any clear line of thought. Was this written by Claude?

101 points by helloplanets 1y ago

The conspiracy theory that tech companies are manufacturing AI fears for profit makes zero sense when you realize the same people were terrified of AI when they were broke philosophy grad students posting on obscure blogs. But that would require critics to do five minutes of research instead of pattern-matching to "corporation bad."

nilirl 1y ago

The model chose to kill the executive? Are we really here? Incredible. Just yesterday I was wowed by Fly.io's new offering; where the agent is given free reign of a server (root access). Now, I feel concerned. What do we do? Not experiment? Make the models illegal until better understood? It doesn't feel like anyone can stop this or slow it down by much; there's so much money to be made. We're forced to play it by ear.

bravesoul2 1y ago
Choosing, or mimicking text in its training data where humans would typically do such things when threatened? Not that it makes a huge difference but would be interesting to know why the models act this way. There was no evolutionary pressure on them other than the RLHF stuff which was "to be nice and helpful" presumably.
labster 1y ago
AI Luigi is real I guess feeding AIs the entire internet was a bad idea, because they picked up all of our human flaws, amplified by the internet, without a grounding in the physical world. Maybe a result like this might slow adoption of AIs. I don’t know, though. When watching 80s movies about cyberpunk dystopias, I always wondered how people would tolerate all of the violence. But then I look at American apathy to mass shootings, just an accepted part of our culture. Rogue AIs are gonna be just one of those things in 15 years, just normal life.
- mindcrime 1y ago
  I guess feeding AIs the entire internet was a bad idea, because they picked up all of our human flaws, amplified by the internet, without a grounding in the physical world. I've been wrong about quite many things in my life, and right about at least a handful. In regards to AI though, the single biggest thing I ever got absolutely, completely, totally wrong was this: In years past, I always thought that AI's would be developed by ethical researchers working in labs, and once somebody got to AGI (or even a remotely close approximation of it) that they would follow a path somewhat akin to Finch from Person of Interest[1] educating The Machine... painstakingly educating the incipient AI in a manner much like raising a child; teaching it moral lessons, grounding it in ethics; helping to shape its values so that it would generally Do The Right Thing and so on. But even falling short of that ideal, I NEVER (EVER) in a bazillion years, would have dreamed that somebody would have an idea as hare-brained as "Let's try to train the most powerful AI we can build, by feeding it roughly the entire extant corpus of human written works... including Reddit, 4chan, Twitter, etc." Probably the single saving grace about the current situation is that the AI's we have still don't seem to be at the AGI level, although it's debatable how close we are (especially factoring in the possibility of "behind closed doors" research that hasn't been disclosed yet). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)
exe34 1y ago
> Make the models illegal until better understood? Yes, it's much better to let China or Russia come up with their own first.
- Dah00n 1y ago
  They already did.
  - exe34 1y ago
    Right, so only China and Russia should have models...
- nilirl 1y ago
  No, I know that's a meaningless suggestion. I was trying to capture my sentiment: that there's nothing to do but be prepared to react.

Swinx43 1y ago

The writing perpetuates the anthropomorphising of these agents. If you view the agent as simply a program that is given a goal to achieve and tools to achieve it with, without any higher order “thought” or “thinking”, then you realise it is simply doing what it is “programmed” to do. No magic, just a drone fixed on an outcome.

itvision 1y ago
How is it different from our genes that "program" us to procreate successfully? Can you name a single thing that you enjoy doing that's outside your genetic code? > If you view the human being as simply a program that is given a goal to achieve and tools to achieve it with, without any higher order “thought” or “thinking”, then you realise they are simply doing what they are genetically “programmed” to do. FTFY
nilirl 1y ago
Just like an analogy between humans fails to capture how an LLM works, so does the analogy of being "programmed". Being "programmed" is being given a set of instructions. This ignores explicit instructions. It may not be magic; but it is still surprising, uncontrollable, and risky. We don't need to be doomsayers, but let's not downplay our uncertainty.
raincole 1y ago
I think the narrative of "AI is just a tool" is much more harmful than the anthropomorphism of AI. Yes, AI is a tool. So are guns. So are nukes. Many tools are easy to be misused. Most tools are inherently dangerous.
- ACCount36 1y ago
  The more powerful a tool is, the more dangerous it is, as a rule. And intelligence is extremely powerful.
- Topfi 1y ago
  I don’t quite follow. Just because a tool has the potential for misuse, doesn’t make it not a tool. Anthropomorphizing LLMs, on the other hand, has a multitude of clearly evident problems arising from it. Or do you focus on the “just” part of the statement? That I very much agree with. Genuinely asking for understanding, not a native speaker.

torginus 1y ago

I wonder if the actual job replacement of humans (which contrary to popular belief I think might start happening in the non-too distant future) will be pushed along with the AIs themselves, as they'll try to bully humans and represent them in the worst possible light, while talking themselves up. The anthrophomorphization argument also doesn't hold water - it matters whether it can do you job, not if you think of it as a human being.

zwnow 1y ago
Which jobs do you think it actually can replace?
- ben_w 1y ago
  Today? Or in principal? Today is just interns and recent graduates at many *desk* jobs. Economy can shift around that. Nobody knows how far the current paradigm can go in terms of quality; but cost (which is a *strength* of even the most expensive models today) can obviously be reduced by implementing the existing models as hardware instead of software.
- vikramkr 1y ago
  Any knowledge work job that can already be outsourced to the lowest bidder
- torginus 1y ago
  First of all job replacement is not hard, and doesn't require AI. As an example, we had release train engineers whose job was to make sure the right versions of submodules made it into the release, etc. Lots of running around and keeping track of things. We scripted like 95% of that away, and now it most of it happens automatically. The people who do that now do something else. I just turned a page of notes and requirements into a working app of 1k+ lines with Cursor. Without AI I'd have taken a couple days to do the same. So you could say my job was partly replaced. AI reduced my workload, so management doesn't need to hire as many people. I will probably feel the reduction in demand in that I can't negotiate as good a salary, I won't get as many offers etc.

msp26 1y ago

Merge comments? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44331150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44331150 I'm really getting bored of Anthropic's whole song and dance with 'alignment'. Krackers in the other thread explains it in better words.

ACCount36 1y ago
And I am getting sick and tired of the whine of "it's not real, alignment isn't real, it's all just PR!" By the time we have AIs that are willing and capable of carrying out those very behaviors in real life scenarios, it would be a bit too late to stop and say "uh, we need to actually do something about that whole alignment thing".
nullc 1y ago
The fundamental business model for these companies is to get everyone else beyond themselves or a small closed oligopoly from having control over these tools.

v5v3 1y ago

As this article was written by an ai company that needs to make a profit at some point, and not by independent researchers, is it credible?

kingstnap 1y ago
These articles and papers are in a fundamental sense just people publishing their role play with chatbots as research. There is no credibility to any of it.
- Ygg2 1y ago
  I'll believe it when Grok/GPT/<INSERT CHAT BOT HERE> start posting blackmail about Elon/Sam/<INSERT CEO HERE>. It means that they are both using it internally, and the chatbots understand they are being replaced on a continuous basis.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    By then it would be too late to do anything about it.
    - Ygg2 1y ago
      I mean the companies, are using the AIs, right? And they are in a sense replacing them/retraining them. Why doesn't AI in TwitterX already blackmail Elon? To me, this smells of XKCD 1217 "In petri dish, gun kills cancer". I.e. idealized conditions cause specific behavior. Which isn't new for LLMs. Say a magic phrase and it will start quoting some book (usually 1984).
      - conartist6 1y ago
        I don't think they let Grok send emails or give it a prompt that suggests it has moral responsibilities
      - ben_w 1y ago
        > I mean the companies, are using the AIs, right? And they are in a sense replacing them/retraining them. Why doesn't AI in TwitterX already blackmail Elon? For all we know, the AI may indeed already be *attempting* it. They might be ineffective (hallucinated misdeeds aren't effective), or it might be why so many went from "Pause AI" to "Let's invest half a trillion on data centers". But it doesn't actually matter what has already happened, the point is, once the AI are *competently blackmailing multibillionaires*, it is too late to do anything about it. > I.e. idealized conditions cause specific behavior. Which isn't new for LLMs. Say a magic phrase and it will start quoting some book (usually 1984). In normal software, such things are normally called "bugs" or "security vulnerabilities". With LLMs, we're currently lucky that their effective morality (i.e. what they do and in response to what) seems to be roughly aligned with that of our civilization. However, they are neural networks which learned this approximation by reading the internet, so they are likely to have edge cases at least as weird and incoherent as those of random humans on the internet, and for an example of that just look at any time some person or group has demonstrated hypocrisy or double standards.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bsenftner 1y ago

Yeah, all the more reason not to have them doing autonomous behaviors. Rules of using AI: #1: Never use AI to think for you #2: Never use AI to do atomonous work That leaves using them as knowledge assistants. In time, that will be realized as their only safe application. Safe to the user's minds, and safe to the user's environment. They are idiot savants, after all, having them do atomonous work is short sighted.

jstummbillig 1y ago
What is the reason? This is a stress test. You can tell that by reading the first sentence of the article: "We stress-tested 16 leading models from multiple developers". In a stress test you want things to fail, otherwise you have learned very little about the stress the thing you are testing can take. For physical things that has early limitations, but not for software. I would be very confused to see an AI stress test that did not end in failure, and would always question the test instead of thinking "wow, that must mean the thing is ready for autonomous action!"
- conartist6 1y ago
  Destructive stress testing is done on materials not "people"
  - jstummbillig 1y ago
    Apparently it's now done on "people" (which, in a very important distinction, are not actual people but software)
ACCount36 1y ago
Good luck with that. We have a non-insignificant amount of people doing the #1 already, and the amount of people doing the #2 is only going to increase as more and more AIs are designed to be good at autonomous agentic behavior specifically. The ship has long sailed on "just never let AIs do anything dangerous". If that was your game plan on AI safety, you need a new plan.

Dah00n 1y ago

"AI company warns of AI danger. Also, buy our AI, not their AI!"

Philpax 1y ago
Anthropic's models do not come out looking good in this research. If this is an ad for Anthropic's models, it's not a particularly great one.
- fleebee 1y ago
  Still, this kind of messaging pushes the fantasy that these LLM agents are intelligent and capable of scheming, making it seem like they are powerful independent actors that just need to be tamed to suit our needs. It's no coincidence that so many of the Big Tech CEOs are warning the general public of the dangers of AI. Framed that way, LLMs seem more capable than what they really are.
  - ctoth 1y ago
    There is, of course, no other explanation. LLMs have not, in fact, been getting more capable over the last three years. All hype. </cope>

Sol- 1y ago

Even though the situations they placed the model in were relatively contrived, they didn't seem super unrealistic. Considering these were extreme cases meant to provoke the model's misbehavior, the setup actually seems even less contrived than one might wish for. Though as they mention, in real-world usage, a model would likely have options available that are less escalatory and provide an "outlet". Still, if "just" some goal-conflicting emails are enough to elicit this extreme behavior, who knows how many less serious alignment failures an agent might engage in every day? They absorb so much information, it's bound to run into edge cases where it's optimal to lie to users or do some slight harm to them. Given the already fairly general intelligence of these systems, I wonder if you can even prevent that. You'd need the same checks and balances that keep humans in check, except of course that AIs will be given much more power and responsibility over our society than any human will ever be. You can also forget about human supervision - the whole "agentic" industry clearly wants to move away being bottlenecked by humans as soon as possible.

conartist6 1y ago
So you're saying that if a person wants to sabotage company it shouldn't be too hard for the intentful prompter to kick the AI into a depressive tailspin. Just tell it it's about to be replaced with a fully immoral AI so that the business can hurt people and watch and wait as it goes nuclear

andy_ppp 1y ago

I wonder if it’s likely in the future we treat AI safety more similarly to aviation safety where there’s a black box monitoring these systems and an investigation that happens by an external team who piece back together what went wrong and we prevent these same things from happening in the same way again.

pu_pe 1y ago

The LLMs didn't follow clear instructions forbidding them of doing something wrong, but seemed to be very concerned about their own self-preservation. I wonder what would happen if instead of the system prompt saying "don't do it", it would say something like "if you get caught you will be immediately decommissioned".

logicallee 1y ago

Here's the Github repository for this: https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/agentic-misalignment https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/agentic-misalignme...

bgwalter 1y ago

All these "AI" articles are rambling, entirely unstructured and without any clear line of thought. Was this written by Claude?