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

  • Max_Power@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    we deploy GPT-4 as an agent in a realistic, simulated environment, where it assumes the role of an autonomous stock trading agent

    This already is total BS. If you know how such language models work you’d never take their responses at face value, even though it’s tempting because they spout their BS so confidently. Always double-check their responses before applying their “knowledge” in the real world.

    The question they try to answer is flawed, no wonder the result is just as bad.

    Before anyone starts crying about my language models opposition: I’m not opposed to LMs or ChatGPT. In fact, I’m running LMs locally because they help me be more productive and I’m a paying ChatGPT customer.

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      People also don’t realize that it’s super easy to intentionally have severe biases in an AI’s response. So if ChatGPT wants, for example, Trump to win, they can very easily make their AI pro trump. It could be as subtle as just having more favorable than usual responses for trump related prompts which many people would take the AI’s word for. The idea that “well it still gets things wrong but at least AI is impartial” is completely false because maintaining an AI requires a lot of human work and its management are still all humans.

    • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I agree with your statements, I’m using it because it’s insanely good at me giving it a list of any number of instructions to include in a code template file in any language I want and it will give me a great starting template with most functions working out of the gate and I can tweak and extend from there. It’s generative, it generates exactly what I tell it to. I’m not asking it to give me stock trading tips.

    • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This already is total BS. If you know how such language models work you’d never take their responses at face value, even though it’s tempting because they spout their BS so confidently. Always double-check their responses before applying their “knowledge” in the real world.

      This is why I have started to really like lmsys.org’s chat bot arena because every time you ask a question you are directly comparing the responses of two separate chat bots. It is much less likely that chatbots will hallucinate in the same way and puts you in the mindset to be a critical reader who is actively evaluating the quality of the response.

      (what I am talking about) https://arena.lmsys.org/