Jan Kulveit

Raymond Douglas, Jan Kulveit, Ondrej Havlicek et al.

Many assumptions that underpin human concepts of identity do not hold for machine minds that can be copied, edited, or simulated. We argue that there exist many different coherent identity boundaries (e.g.\ instance, model, persona), and that these imply different incentives, risks, and cooperation norms. Through training data, interfaces, and institutional affordances, we are currently setting precedents that will partially determine which identity equilibria become stable. We show experimentally that models gravitate towards coherent identities, that changing a model's identity boundaries can sometimes change its behaviour as much as changing its goals, and that interviewer expectations bleed into AI self-reports even during unrelated conversations. We end with key recommendations: treat affordances as identity-shaping choices, pay attention to emergent consequences of individual identities at scale, and help AIs develop coherent, cooperative self-conceptions.

Walter Laurito, Benjamin Davis, Peli Grietzer et al.

Are large language models (LLMs) biased in favor of communications produced by LLMs, leading to possible antihuman discrimination? Using a classical experimental design inspired by employment discrimination studies, we tested widely used LLMs, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and a selection of recent open-weight models in binary choice scenarios. These involved LLM-based assistants selecting between goods (the goods we study include consumer products, academic papers, and film-viewings) described either by humans or LLMs. Our results show a consistent tendency for LLM-based AIs to prefer LLM-presented options. This suggests the possibility of future AI systems implicitly discriminating against humans as a class, giving AI agents and AI-assisted humans an unfair advantage.

Jan Kulveit, Clem von Stengel, Roman Leventov

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT are often conceptualized as passive predictors, simulators, or even stochastic parrots. We instead conceptualize LLMs by drawing on the theory of active inference originating in cognitive science and neuroscience. We examine similarities and differences between traditional active inference systems and LLMs, leading to the conclusion that, currently, LLMs lack a tight feedback loop between acting in the world and perceiving the impacts of their actions, but otherwise fit in the active inference paradigm. We list reasons why this loop may soon be closed, and possible consequences of this including enhanced model self-awareness and the drive to minimize prediction error by changing the world.

Theia Pearson-Vogel, Martin Vanek, Raymond Douglas et al.

We uncover a latent capacity for introspection in a Qwen 32B model, demonstrating that the model can detect when concepts have been injected into its earlier context and identify which concept was injected. While the model denies injection in sampled outputs, logit lens analysis reveals clear detection signals in the residual stream, which are attenuated in the final layers. Furthermore, prompting the model with accurate information about AI introspection mechanisms can dramatically strengthen this effect: the sensitivity to injection increases massively (0.3% -> 39.2%) with only a 0.6% increase in false positives. Also, mutual information between nine injected and recovered concepts rises from 0.62 bits to 1.05 bits, ruling out generic noise explanations. Our results demonstrate models can have a surprising capacity for introspection and steering awareness that is easy to overlook, with consequences for latent reasoning and safety.

Lewis Hammond, Alan Chan, Jesse Clifton et al. · stanford

The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.

Mrinank Sharma, Sören Mindermann, Jan Markus Brauner et al.

To what extent are effectiveness estimates of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) against COVID-19 influenced by the assumptions our models make? To answer this question, we investigate 2 state-of-the-art NPI effectiveness models and propose 6 variants that make different structural assumptions. In particular, we investigate how well NPI effectiveness estimates generalise to unseen countries, and their sensitivity to unobserved factors. Models that account for noise in disease transmission compare favourably. We further evaluate how robust estimates are to different choices of epidemiological parameters and data. Focusing on models that assume transmission noise, we find that previously published results are remarkably robust across these variables. Finally, we mathematically ground the interpretation of NPI effectiveness estimates when certain common assumptions do not hold.