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

  • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Interestingly, humans “auto complete” all the time and make up stories to rationalize their own behavior even when they literally have no idea why they acted the way they did, like in experiments with split brain patients.

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The perceived quality of human intelligence is held up by so many assumptions, like “having free will” and “understanding truth”. Do we really? Can anyone prove that? (Edit, this works the other way too. Assuming that we do understand truth and have free will - if those terms can even be defined in a testable way - can you prove that the llm doesn’t?)

      At this point I’m convinced that the difference between a llm and human-level intelligence is dimensions of awareness, scale, and further development of the model’s architecture. Fundamentally though, I think we have all the pieces

      Edit: I just want to emphasize, I think. I hypothesize. I don’t pretend to know