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

  • Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is a really solid explanation of how studies finding human behavior in LLMs don’t mean much; humans project meaning.

    • theluddite@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      11 months ago

      Thanks! There are tons of these studies, and they all drive me nuts because they’re just ontologically flawed. Reading them makes me understand why my school forced me to take philosophy and STS classes when I got my science degree.

      • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        I have thought about this for a long time, basically since the release of ChatGPT, and the problem in my opinion is that certain people have been fooled into believing that LLMs are actual intelligence.

        The average person severely underestimates how complex human cognition, intelligence and consciousness are. They equate the ability of LLMs to generate coherent and contextually appropriate responses with true intelligence or understanding, when it’s anything but.

        In a hypothetical world where you had a dice with billions of sides, or a wheel with billions of slots, each shifting their weight with grains of sand, depending on the previous roll or spin, the outcome would closely resemble the output of an LLM. In essence LLMs operate by rapidly sifting through a vast array of pre-learned patterns and associations, much like the shifting sands in the analogy, to generate responses that seem intelligent and coherent.

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I like the language you used in your explanation. It’s hard to find good analogues to explain why these aren’t intelligent, and it seems most people don’t understand how they work.

    • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Isn’t the point if these things to tell a story rather than give insight. They want to Poison the well