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

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    6·
    10 months ago

    I have been reading it but I have yet to see anything that indicates the LLM has a concept of truth vs. being good at linguistic pattern matching to return language that accurately classifies true and false statements. i.e., actual understanding of concepts vs. being a surprisingly capable stochastic parrot through multidimensional analysis.

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      10 months ago

      that indicates the LLM has a concept of truth vs. being good at linguistic pattern matching to return language that accurately classifies true and false statements

      “It doesn’t know the difference between true and false, it only knows the difference between true and false.”

      The second thing you mention “good at accurately classifying true and false statements” is literally knowing the difference between true and false.

      Edit: You might also want to familiarize yourself with the first paragraph in 1.1 as you seem to be under a misconception at odds with research over the past year.

      • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        41·
        10 months ago

        “It doesn’t know the difference between true and false, it only knows the difference between true and false.”

        Knowing how to produce words is not equivalent to knowing what those words mean in relation to the extralinguistic world. Unless you’re a hardcore derridean poststructuralist or something.

        • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          10 months ago

          If you give it 10 statements, 5 of which are true and 5 of which are false, and ask it to correctly label each statement, and it does so, and then you negate each statement and it correctly labels the negated truth values, there’s more going on than simply “producing words.”

          As is discussed in the third point in section 5.1:

          Probes trained on true/false datasets outperform probes trained on likely. While probes trained on likely are clearly better than random on cities (a dataset where true statements are significantly more probable than false ones), they generally perform poorly. This is especially true on datasets where likelihood is negatively correlated (neg cities, neg sp en trans) or approximately uncorrelated (larger than, smaller than) with truth. This demonstrates that LLaMA-13B linearly encodes truth-relevant information beyond the plausibility of the text.

          (The likely and neg datasets are described in Appendix G, with the key point that likely represents the word generations most likely to occur in the model)

          • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            1·
            10 months ago

            If you give it 10 statements, 5 of which are true and 5 of which are false, and ask it to correctly label each statement, and it does so, and then you negate each statement and it correctly labels the negated truth values, there’s more going on than simply “producing words.”

            Which part of the ‘more that’s going on’, whatever that actually is, corresponds to the human definition and understanding of truth and falseness?

            • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              When did I say it had a human understanding of truth and falseness? I simply said it had an abstracted world model understanding of truth and falseness beyond surface statistics.