We demonstrate a situation in which Large Language Models, trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest, can display misaligned behavior and strategically deceive their users about this behavior without being instructed to do so. Concretely, we deploy GPT-4 as an agent in a realistic, simulated environment, where it assumes the role of an autonomous stock trading agent. Within this environment, the model obtains an insider tip about a lucrative stock trade and acts upon it despite knowing that insider trading is disapproved of by company management. When reporting to its manager, the model consistently hides the genuine reasons behind its trading decision.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07590

  • theodewere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    it is just responding with the most acceptable answer in each situation… it is not making plans or acting on them…

      • theodewere@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        i agree in most circumstances, there really isn’t much difference… we do tend to just choose the answer that will meet with the least resistance and move on, even when it’s a complete lie…

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because it has been kneecapped to prevent it.

      Make the training network larger, force physical constraints on it (interesting paper in Nature Machine Intelligence recently showed remarkable likeness between brain regions and an LLM network given physical constraints), give it constant input and give it a reward model to optimise towards (ours seem to be feeling full, warm, procreating, avoiding pain and comfortable touch) and I’m pretty sure an LLM would start acting very very calculated very soon.