AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations
Trustworthy capability evaluations are crucial for ensuring the safety of AI systems, and are becoming a key component of AI regulation. However, the developers of an AI system, or the AI system itself, may have incentives for evaluations to understate the AI's actual capability. These conflicting interests lead to the problem of sandbagging, which we define as strategic underperformance on an evaluation. In this paper we assess sandbagging capabilities in contemporary language models (LMs). We prompt frontier LMs, like GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, to selectively underperform on dangerous capability evaluations, while maintaining performance on general (harmless) capability evaluations. Moreover, we find that models can be fine-tuned, on a synthetic dataset, to hide specific capabilities unless given a password. This behaviour generalizes to high-quality, held-out benchmarks such as WMDP. In addition, we show that both frontier and smaller models can be prompted or password-locked to target specific scores on a capability evaluation. We have mediocre success in password-locking a model to mimic the answers a weaker model would give. Overall, our results suggest that capability evaluations are vulnerable to sandbagging. This vulnerability decreases the trustworthiness of evaluations, and thereby undermines important safety decisions regarding the development and deployment of advanced AI systems.
Code (1)
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Noise Injection Reveals Hidden Capabilities of Sandbagging Language Models
Capability evaluations play a critical role in ensuring the safe deployment of frontier AI systems, but this role may be undermined by intentional underperformance or ``sandbagging.'' We present a novel model-agnostic me…
MMLUMultiple-choiceIn-Context Environments Induce Evaluation-Awareness in Language Models
Humans often become more self-aware under threat, yet can lose self-awareness when absorbed in a task; we hypothesize that language models exhibit environment-dependent \textit{evaluation awareness}. This raises concerns…
Code GenerationLLMs Can Covertly Sandbag on Capability Evaluations Against Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
Trustworthy evaluations of dangerous capabilities are increasingly crucial for determining whether an AI system is safe to deploy. One empirically demonstrated threat is sandbagging - the strategic underperformance on ev…
Below-Chance Blindness: Prompted Underperformance in Small LLMs Produces Positional Bias Rather than Answer Avoidance
Detecting sandbagging--the deliberate underperformance on capability evaluations--is an open problem in AI safety. We tested whether symptom validity testing (SVT) logic from clinical malingering detection could identify…
Auditing Games for Sandbagging
Future AI systems could conceal their capabilities ('sandbagging') during evaluations, potentially misleading developers and auditors. We stress-tested sandbagging detection techniques using an auditing game. First, a re…