Emergent Deception and Emergent Optimization
I’ve previously argued that machine learning systems often exhibit emergent capabilities, and that these capabilities could lead to unintended negative consequences. But how can we reason concretely about these consequences?
[Note: this post was drafted before Sydney (the Bing chatbot) was released, but Sydney demonstrates some particularly good examples of some of the issues I discuss below. I've therefore added a few Sydney-related notes in relevant places.] I’ve previously argued that machine learning systems often exhibit emergent capabilities , and that these capabilities could lead to unintended negative consequences . But how can we reason concretely about these consequences? There’s two principles I find useful for reasoning about future emergent capabilities: If a capability would help get lower training
Explore this link on the map →related reading
- ML Systems Will Have Weird Failure Modesbounded-regret.ghost.io
- DeepSeek-R1arxiv.org
- How confessions can keep language models honest | OpenAIopenai.com
- 39 - Evan Hubinger on Model Organisms of Misalignment | AXRP - the AI X-risk Research Podcastaxrp.net
- Emotion concepts and their function in a large language model \ Anthropicanthropic.com
- [2401.05566] Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingarxiv.org
- Natural Deception with RL - Rajan Agarwalrajan.sh
- Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Natural-emergent-misalignment-from-reward-hacking-paper.pdfassets.anthropic.com
- Deep Deceptiveness — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Optimality is the tiger, and agents are its teeth — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Thinking about reasoning models made me less worried about scheming — LessWronglesswrong.com