698
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by yesman@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

If I take my car into the garage for repairs because the "loss of traction" warning light is on despite having perfectly good traction, and I were to tell the mechanic "the traction sensor is lying," do you think he'd understand what I said perfectly well or do you think he'd launch into a philosophical debate over whether the sensor has agency?

This is a perfectly fine word to use to describe this kind of behaviour in everyday parlance.

[-] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Is your conversation with a mechanic meant to be the summary and description of a rigorous scientific discovery?

This isn't 'everyday parlance' this is the result of a study.

[-] FunctionFn@feddit.nl 14 points 11 months ago

The point of the distinction in that situation is that no one thinks your car is actually alive and capable of lying to you. The language distinction when describing an obviously inanimate object isn't important because there is no chance for confusion.

[-] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 7 points 11 months ago

If someone doesn't know the answer to something and they guess, or think they know the answer but don't, they are wrong. If they do know the answer and intentionally give a wrong answer, they are lying.

If someone is in a competition or playing a game and they break a rule they didn't know about, they made a mistake. If they do know the rules and break it, they are cheating.

Lying and cheating fundamentally requires intent. This is important no matter what you're referring to. If a child gets something wrong, you should not get mad at them for lying. If they make a mistake in a game, you should not acuse them out cheating. There is a difference and it matters.

ChatGPT literally cannot think. It's not sitting around contemplating it's existence while waiting for inputs. It's taking what you say, comparing that to everything that it's been trained on, assigning a bunch of statistics, and outputting something based on more statistics that hopefully is correct and makes sense.

It doesn't know if it makes sense. It doesn't "know" anything. It's just an incredibly sophisticated version of "if user inputs 'Hi how are you', respond 'I am well, how are you?'".

It can't do things with intent. Therefore it cannot lie or cheat. It can simply output wrong or problematic text based on statistics.

this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
698 points (92.7% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
1050 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS