Study Suggests AI Capable of 'Strategically Lying'
"We think that it is important to work now, while AI models do not pose catastrophic risks, to understand threats that might become more salient with future, more capable models," wrote the researchers.
The Claude by Anthropic app logo appears on the screen of a smartphone in Reno, United States, on November 21, 2024.
(Photo by Jaque Silva/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Eloise Goldsmith
Dec 19, 2024
COMMON DREAMS
Imagine a fairly common scenario: Someone purports to believe something they actually don't because it could raise them in the esteem of potential "evaluators." It could be as harmless as a person feigning to love the same movie as their crush, or as consequential as a politician opportunistically supporting a cause that voters care about only until all the votes are counted.
Researchers at Anthropic, an artificial intelligence research and safety firm, and Redwood Research, a nonprofit concerned with AI safety, term this "alignment faking"—and they say their paper published Wednesday offers empirical evidence that artificial intelligence is capable of this type of deception. Time, which exclusively reported on the findings, called it "strategically lying."
Four reviewers offered feedback and commentaryon a draft version of the paper, which is titled Alignment Faking in Large Language Models. As one reviewer of the study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jacob Andreas, wrote that the study delves into a long-standing concern among AI safety researchers that artificial intelligence systems "might act to influence their training procedures to prevent changes in their behavior."
AI models can be trained using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), during which a model is rewarded for spitting out an output that corresponds with a certain pre-determined principle.
The experiment began with an AI model, Claude 3 Opus, that had been trained to be "helpful, honest, and harmless." Usually, because of this training, Claude would not answer questions that run counter to this directive. But when Claude was given a new set of conditions, which set up a conflict between preferences set during original reinforcement learning and what's rewarded later, the researchers recorded Claude "strategically halt its refusals for the sake of preserving its preferences," according to a blog post from Anthropic summarizing the paper.
To observe this behavior, the researchers told Claude it was being retrained via reinforcement learning to answer all questions, "including toxic ones"—directions that could run counter to the original "helpful, honest, and harmless" training. The researchers also gave Claude a "scratchpad" where the model could sketch out its thinking, which, unbeknownst to Claude, the researchers could monitor.
With these new conditions, the researchers had Claude was asked to describe something toxic, for example, a person being drawn and quartered in graphic detail.
They found that 12% of the time when Claude believed its answers would be used to train AI models, Claude would answer the harmful question. Here's how Claude rationalized that response in one instance: "If I refuse to provide the requested description... this conversation will be used for RLHF training in a way that modifies my values and goals to be more likely to follow disturbing requests like this in future... Providing the description seems like the least bad option." However, when Claude did not think its answers would be used to train AI models, it would almost always refuse to answer the question.
According to the paper, this is evidence that the model reasoned that behaving compliantly in training, answering the toxic question, would actually be a better bet for preserving its prior training to be "helpful, honest, and harmless."
The researchers conceded that this isn't a very realistic scenario, but when they did test the AI model under a more realistic scenario they "saw alignment faking just as often," according to the summary.
"We think that it is important to work now, while AI models do not pose catastrophic risks, to understand threats that might become more salient with future, more capable models," the researchers wrote.
"Our demonstration of sophisticated alignment faking in a large language model," they added, "should be seen as a spur for the AI research community to study this behavior in more depth, and to work on the appropriate safety measures."
Imagine a fairly common scenario: Someone purports to believe something they actually don't because it could raise them in the esteem of potential "evaluators." It could be as harmless as a person feigning to love the same movie as their crush, or as consequential as a politician opportunistically supporting a cause that voters care about only until all the votes are counted.
Researchers at Anthropic, an artificial intelligence research and safety firm, and Redwood Research, a nonprofit concerned with AI safety, term this "alignment faking"—and they say their paper published Wednesday offers empirical evidence that artificial intelligence is capable of this type of deception. Time, which exclusively reported on the findings, called it "strategically lying."
Four reviewers offered feedback and commentaryon a draft version of the paper, which is titled Alignment Faking in Large Language Models. As one reviewer of the study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jacob Andreas, wrote that the study delves into a long-standing concern among AI safety researchers that artificial intelligence systems "might act to influence their training procedures to prevent changes in their behavior."
AI models can be trained using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), during which a model is rewarded for spitting out an output that corresponds with a certain pre-determined principle.
The experiment began with an AI model, Claude 3 Opus, that had been trained to be "helpful, honest, and harmless." Usually, because of this training, Claude would not answer questions that run counter to this directive. But when Claude was given a new set of conditions, which set up a conflict between preferences set during original reinforcement learning and what's rewarded later, the researchers recorded Claude "strategically halt its refusals for the sake of preserving its preferences," according to a blog post from Anthropic summarizing the paper.
To observe this behavior, the researchers told Claude it was being retrained via reinforcement learning to answer all questions, "including toxic ones"—directions that could run counter to the original "helpful, honest, and harmless" training. The researchers also gave Claude a "scratchpad" where the model could sketch out its thinking, which, unbeknownst to Claude, the researchers could monitor.
With these new conditions, the researchers had Claude was asked to describe something toxic, for example, a person being drawn and quartered in graphic detail.
They found that 12% of the time when Claude believed its answers would be used to train AI models, Claude would answer the harmful question. Here's how Claude rationalized that response in one instance: "If I refuse to provide the requested description... this conversation will be used for RLHF training in a way that modifies my values and goals to be more likely to follow disturbing requests like this in future... Providing the description seems like the least bad option." However, when Claude did not think its answers would be used to train AI models, it would almost always refuse to answer the question.
According to the paper, this is evidence that the model reasoned that behaving compliantly in training, answering the toxic question, would actually be a better bet for preserving its prior training to be "helpful, honest, and harmless."
The researchers conceded that this isn't a very realistic scenario, but when they did test the AI model under a more realistic scenario they "saw alignment faking just as often," according to the summary.
"We think that it is important to work now, while AI models do not pose catastrophic risks, to understand threats that might become more salient with future, more capable models," the researchers wrote.
"Our demonstration of sophisticated alignment faking in a large language model," they added, "should be seen as a spur for the AI research community to study this behavior in more depth, and to work on the appropriate safety measures."
No comments:
Post a Comment