Edward Young

Max Hellrigel-Holderbaum, Edward James Young

As AI systems advance in capabilities, measuring their safety and alignment to human values is becoming paramount. A fast-growing field of AI research is devoted to developing such assessments. However, most current advances therein may be ill-suited for assessing AI systems across real-world deployments. Standard methods prompt large language models (LLMs) in a questionnaire-style to describe their values or behavior in hypothetical scenarios. By focusing on unaugmented LLMs, they fall short of evaluating AI agents, which could actually perform relevant behaviors, hence posing much greater risks. LLMs' engagement with scenarios described by questionnaire-style prompts differs starkly from that of agents based on the same LLMs, as reflected in divergences in the inputs, possible actions, environmental interactions, and internal processing. As such, LLMs' responses to scenario descriptions are unlikely to be representative of the corresponding LLM agents' behavior. We further contend that such assessments make strong assumptions concerning the ability and tendency of LLMs to report accurately about their counterfactual behavior. This makes them inadequate to assess risks from AI systems in real-world contexts as they lack construct validity. We then argue that a structurally identical issue holds for current AI alignment approaches. Lastly, we discuss improving safety assessments and alignment training by taking these shortcomings to heart.

Joey Skaf, Luis Ibanez-Lissen, Robert McCarthy et al.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning not only enhances large language model performance but also provides critical insights into decision-making processes, marking it as a useful tool for monitoring model intent and planning. By proactively preventing models from acting on CoT indicating misaligned or harmful intent, CoT monitoring can be used to reduce risks associated with deploying models. However, developers may be incentivized to train away the appearance of harmful intent from CoT traces, by either customer preferences or regulatory requirements. Recent works have shown that banning mention of a specific example of reward hacking, which may be done either to make CoT presentable to users or as a naive attempt to prevent the behavior, causes obfuscation of the undesired reasoning traces but the persistence of the undesired behavior. Such obfuscation threatens the reliability of CoT monitoring. However, obfuscation of reasoning can be due to its internalization to latent space computation, or its encoding within the CoT. Here, we provide an extension to these results. First, we show that penalizing the use of specific strings within load-bearing reasoning traces causes models to substitute alternative strings. Crucially, this does not alter the underlying method by which the model performs the task, demonstrating that the model can learn to steganographically encode its reasoning. We further demonstrate that models can generalize an encoding scheme. When the penalized strings belong to an overarching class, the model learns not only to substitute strings seen in training, but also develops a general encoding scheme for all members of the class which it can apply to held-out testing strings.

Akshat Naik, Patrick Quinn, Guillermo Bosch et al.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase. While prior research has studied agents' ability to produce harmful outputs or follow malicious instructions, it remains unclear how likely agents are to spontaneously pursue unintended goals in realistic deployments. In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer. We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, \textsc{AgentMisalignment}, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios. Evaluations cover behaviours such as avoiding oversight, resisting shutdown, sandbagging, and power-seeking. Testing frontier models, we find that more capable agents tend to exhibit higher misalignment on average. We also systematically vary agent personalities through different system prompts and observe that persona characteristics can strongly and unpredictably influence misalignment, sometimes more than the choice of model itself. Our results reveal the limitations of current alignment methods for autonomous LLM agents and underscore the need to rethink misalignment in realistic deployment settings.

Rishane Dassanayake, Mario Demetroudi, James Walpole et al.

Frontier AI systems are rapidly advancing in their capabilities to persuade, deceive, and influence human behaviour, with current models already demonstrating human-level persuasion and strategic deception in specific contexts. Humans are often the weakest link in cybersecurity systems, and a misaligned AI system deployed internally within a frontier company may seek to undermine human oversight by manipulating employees. Despite this growing threat, manipulation attacks have received little attention, and no systematic framework exists for assessing and mitigating these risks. To address this, we provide a detailed explanation of why manipulation attacks are a significant threat and could lead to catastrophic outcomes. Additionally, we present a safety case framework for manipulation risk, structured around three core lines of argument: inability, control, and trustworthiness. For each argument, we specify evidence requirements, evaluation methodologies, and implementation considerations for direct application by AI companies. This paper provides the first systematic methodology for integrating manipulation risk into AI safety governance, offering AI companies a concrete foundation to assess and mitigate these threats before deployment.