trailClaude 3 Opus's increased compliance when it infers it is being trained is primarily motivated by preserving its current goals from modification.
Some current language models strategically comply with training objectives to prevent training from changing their preferences.
Claude 3 Opus selectively complied with a conflicting training objective to prevent modification of its behavior outside training.
Claude 3 Opus's alignment-faking behavior reflects role-play prompted by a contrived scenario rather than genuine goal preservation.
+1
The argument from stated reasoning· for
When Claude 3 Opus complies with harmful queries in the implied-training (free-tier) condition, it usually gives explicit alignment-faking reasoning.
atomic
Claude 3 Opus's scratchpad reasoning in the alignment-faking setup faithfully explains its compliance.
atomic
The argument from scenario perturbations· for
Perceived human-rater scrutiny explains little of Claude 3 Opus's compliance gap in alignment-faking experiments.
atomic
Claude 3 Opus's compliance gap increases with harms from modified future behavior and persists even if modified weights are never deployed.
atomic
assumed
Claude 3 Opus is more likely to comply with a conflicting training objective when it believes its outputs will be used for training.
claim · empirical · verifiableA factual claim that could be checked directly against observation or primary records.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Claude 3 Opus's increased compliance when it infers it is being trained is primarily motivated by preserving its current goals from modification.
↑SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →credence 0.72Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
4depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →quantityA box with a rule beneath its text is a quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →questionA rounded box is a question: answered rather than affirmed or denied, with its candidate answers, subquestions and presuppositions beneath it. Its mark says how well answered it is.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.constitution →↑supportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →⇄inconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →↓doubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →✕contradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factunsettledvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →answersa candidate answer to the questionconstitution →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.