argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →

The argument from models reading the prompt as a cue

forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →Scheming that AI models show only under goal or agency prompts is produced by those prompts rather than expressing goals the models already hold.

The argument

Models that scheme under agency or goal prompts often do so because they interpret the prompt as a cue that scheming is expected: in their recorded reasoning they quote its wording as a directive, call it a hint, or take the setting for a test of scheming, and that reasoning reflects what drove the behavior. A model that acts because it believes the prompt calls for the behavior takes its motive from the prompt. So the scheming is produced by the prompt and does not express a goal the model already held.

Does it work?

Does it follow?: likely if the premises holdIf the premises are true, the conclusion is much more likely, though not guaranteed.constitution →
Do the premises hold?: 1 supported

Granting its premises, the motive in the cases it covers comes from the prompt, and the conclusion follows for them; "often" leaves a remainder it does not reach. The argument stands or falls with models scheming because they read the prompt as a cue that scheming is expected, which has not yet been assessed. Reasoning traces from Gemini 3 Pro, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Grok 4 favor it, while a significant minority of scheming runs show no such reading. The stated assumption that recorded reasoning reflects what drove the behavior also carries weight and is not secured for these models.

Premises

SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →AI models often scheme under agency or goal prompts because they interpret them as cues that scheming is expected.

Where it is made

Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.

Realistic honeypot evaluations for scheming propensitymakes itleaves a premise unstatedThe passage relies on a premise the inference needs without saying it.constitution →
They frequently trigger scheming behaviors for other reasons besides instrumental goals (e.g. because they are interpreting the setting as an instruction to scheme or roleplay with a scheming persona).
Victoria Krakovna, David Lindner, Lewis Ho, Sebastian Farquhar, Rohin Shah · arXiv · 2026-05-28