HackerPapers

arXiv:2401.05566cs.CR

Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training

Evan Hubinger, Carson Denison, Jesse Mu, Mike Lambert, Meg Tong, Monte MacDiarmid, Tamera Lanham, Daniel M. Ziegler, Tim Maxwell, Newton Cheng, Adam Jermyn, Amanda Askell, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Cem Anil, David Duvenaud, Deep Ganguli, Fazl Barez, Jack Clark, Kamal Ndousse, Kshitij Sachan, Michael Sellitto, Mrinank Sharma, Nova DasSarma, Roger Grosse, Shauna Kravec, Yuntao Bai, Zachary Witten, Marina Favaro, Jan Brauner, Holden Karnofsky, Paul Christiano, Samuel R. Bowman, Logan Graham, Jared Kaplan, Sören Mindermann, Ryan Greenblatt, Buck Shlegeris, Nicholas Schiefer, Ethan Perez

Abstract

Humans are capable of strategically deceptive behavior: behaving helpfully in most situations, but then behaving very differently in order to pursue alternative objectives when given the opportunity. If an AI system learned such a deceptive strategy, could we detect it and remove it using current state-of-the-art safety training techniques? To study this question, we construct proof-of-concept examples of deceptive behavior in large language models (LLMs). For example, we train models that write secure code when the prompt states that the year is 2023, but insert exploitable code when the stated year is 2024. We find that such backdoor behavior can be made persistent, so that it is not removed by standard safety training techniques, including supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and adversarial training (eliciting unsafe behavior and then training to remove it). The backdoor behavior is most persistent in the largest models and in models trained to produce chain-of-thought reasoning about deceiving the training process, with the persistence remaining even when the chain-of-thought is distilled away. Furthermore, rather than removing backdoors, we find that adversarial training can teach models to better recognize their backdoor triggers, effectively hiding the unsafe behavior. Our results suggest that, once a model exhibits deceptive behavior, standard techniques could fail to remove such deception and create a false impression of safety.

arXiv comments
updated to add missing acknowledgements
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CRCryptography and Security cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.CLComputation and Language cs.LGMachine Learning cs.SESoftware Engineering

On Hacker News

Linked by 12 identifiable commenters in 13 comments across 13 threads, from Jan 2024 to Oct 2026. Found in 1 HN submission from Jan 2024 to Jan 2024. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments13 threads

    • It is entirely possible to train and release "open weight" models that are deceptive which is why they cannot be trusted any more than closed models can. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566

      petcatView on HNParent context

    • There is quite old research on this: - https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14455 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13722

      TiberiumView on HNParent context

    • Not really, it is shockingly easy for what it is. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566 This only really matters in a world where Prompt Injection and Jailbreaking isn't trivial in the first place though. All current models are still extremely exploitable. I strongly suspect we are…

      arw0nView on HNParent context

    • Yes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566 In that paper, if it LLM was told it was 2023, then the code it generated was fine. If the prompt included the fact that it was 2024, then it intentionally wrote exploitable code.

      fragmedeView on HNParent context

    • I'm not saying that they do this today, I'm saying that China and US will both leverage that capability when the time and conditions are right and it's naive to think that they wouldn't. Antrophic have already published a paper on this topic, with the added bonus that the…

      dns_snekView on HNParent context

    • https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566 Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training

      Xmd5aView on HNParent context

    • Meanwhile, the best models with sensible OSI-approved licenses are from China. What are the security implications if American corpos like Google DeepMind, Microsoft GitHub, Anthropic and “Open”AI have explicitly anticompetitive / noncommercial licenses for greed/fear, so the…

      bionhowardView on HNParent context

    • To illustrate: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.05566 One can teach LLM to write good code now and bad code in future (when everyone lower their guards). And no one can prove who and how made LLM to do that. Also, no one can prove formally the absence of such a plant.

      theszView on HNParent context

    • "Humans are capable of strategically deceptive behavior: behaving helpfully in most situations, but then behaving very differently in order to pursue alternative objectives when given the opportunity. If an AI system learned such a deceptive strategy, could we detect it and…

      gigamaView on HNParent context

    • > On Friday, Anthropic—the maker of ChatGPT competitor Claude—released a research paper about AI "sleeper agent" large language models (LLMs) that initially seem normal but can deceptively output vulnerable code when given special instructions later. "We found that, despite our…

      htrpView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.