Score breakdown

Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs That Persist Through Safety Training

paper-0159 · paper · 2024

Evan Hubinger et al.

Empirical evidence that deceptive behaviour can survive standard safety training.

Abstract

Humans are capable of strategically deceptive behavior: behaving helpfully in most situations, but then behaving very differently in order to pursue alternative objectives when given the opportunity. If an AI system learned such a deceptive strategy, could we detect it and remove it using current state-of-the-art safety training techniques? To study this question, we construct proof-of-concept examples of deceptive behavior in large language models (LLMs). For example, we train models that write secure code when the prompt states that the year is 2023, but insert exploitable code when the stated year is 2024. We find that such backdoor behavior can be made persistent, so that it is not removed by standard safety training techniques, including supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and adversarial training (eliciting unsafe behavior and then training to remove it). The backdoor behavior is most persistent in the largest models and in models trained to produce chain-of-thought reasoning about deceiving the training process, with the persistence remaining even when the chain-of-thought is distilled away. Furthermore, rather than removing backdoors, we find that adversarial training can teach models to better recognize their backdoor triggers, effectively hiding the unsafe behavior. Our results suggest that, once a model exhibits deceptive behavior, standard techniques could fail to remove such deception and create a false impression of safety. [OpenAlex]

Academic, score -0.2142

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent34.00.0001490.57.4e-05OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.1recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent4.00.2142860.050.010714OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Broad Influence, score -0.1143

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent34.00.0001490.23e-05OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent4.00.2142860.40.085714OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.075recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Governance Practitioner, score -0.3035

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent34.00.0001490.253.7e-05OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.15recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent4.00.2142860.10.021429OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.175recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

A rank is not a verdict on intrinsic worth. It is a transparent output of declared evidence, weights, and missing-data rules at a specific release date.

Disagree with this rank or a number? Challenge it with your evidence. Every challenge gets a public identifier and a published resolution.