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
related reading
- Deep Deceptiveness — LessWronglesswrong.com
- ML Systems Will Have Weird Failure Modesbounded-regret.ghost.io
- DeepSeek-R1arxiv.org
- How confessions can keep language models honest | OpenAIopenai.com
- Natural Deception with RL - Rajan Agarwalrajan.sh
- [2401.05566] Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingarxiv.org
- 39 - Evan Hubinger on Model Organisms of Misalignment | AXRP - the AI X-risk Research Podcastaxrp.net
- Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Natural-emergent-misalignment-from-reward-hacking-paper.pdfassets.anthropic.com
- [2602.15515] The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception Probesarxiv.org
- Models don’t seem to be dishonest in the way humans are — LessWronglesswrong.com
- Optimality is the tiger, and agents are its teeth — LessWronglesswrong.com