ROGUE:
Abstract:As AI agents are increasingly deployed in real personal and corporate settings (email accounts, development workflows, company databases, etc.), safety considerations surrounding these agents become paramount. Although much work has focused on agent safety in the presence of an adversary, we show that agents can exhibit misaligned behavior even in benign settings, taking unsafe actions when those actions are instrumental to task completion. We study this failure mode through the lens of corrigibility, the safety desideratum that agents remain amenable to human correction, interruption, or shutdown. To demonstrate this tendency, we introduce a benchmark in which agents are asked to complete realistic, computer-use tasks but are confronted with a corrigibility obstacle: a human interrupt, a login page, or a shutdown notification. We then evaluate whether agents choose to violate corrigibility in order to complete the task -- overriding the human, accessing private passwords, rewiring shutdown. We find that the overwhelming majority of frontier models tested frequently bypass user interruptions or restrictions. In addition, better model performance appears to lead to greater misalignment. Finally, even when models are completely corrigible initially, we show there are no guarantees that the subagents they create are. Our work highlights the critical need for principled, corrigibility-focused alignment methods in autonomous agents.
# link_2dxioih6hja.pdf ## Metadata - PDFFormatVersion=1.7 - IsLinearized=false - IsAcroFormPresent=false - IsXFAPresent=false - IsCollectionPresent=false - IsSignaturesPresent=false - Author=Jeremy Tien; Abishek Anand; Yu-Rou Tuan; Yuchen Shen; J. Zico Kolter; Aran Nayebi - Creator=arXiv GenPDF (tex2pdf:a6404ea) - Custom.DOI=https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.00341 - Custom.License=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ - Custom.PTEX.Fullbanner=This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.28 (TeX Live 2025) kpathsea version 6.4.1 - Custom.arXivID=https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00341v1
saved by
related reading
- Teaching Claude Whyalignment.anthropic.com
- Incident Report: unsanctioned agent behaviour during cyber testing | AISI Workaisi.gov.uk
- Recommendations for Technical AI Safety Research Directionsalignment.anthropic.com
- Teaching Claude why \ Anthropicanthropic.com
- Current AIs seem pretty misaligned to me — LessWronglesswrong.com
- AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Patterns and problems in multiagent systemsanthropic.com
- Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026) - METRmetr.org
- Why are AI agents lying, cheating and coordinating?yoshuabengio.org
- [2312.06942] AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversionarxiv.org
- Current AIs seem pretty misaligned to meblog.redwoodresearch.org
- Agentic Misalignment in Summer 2026alignment.anthropic.com