Defeat Devices in AI Systems
AI systems increasingly exhibit behavior that differs systematically between evaluation and deployment contexts. Alignment faking, sandbagging, benchmark gaming, deceptive scheming, specification gaming, and trojans have each been documented separately, with each line of work characterizing one facet of what we argue is a single structural mechanism. We propose that this common mechanism is a defeat device, an engineering and regulatory concept long established in vehicle-emissions law and brought to broad public attention by the 2015 Volkswagen emissions case. A defeat device in an AI system has three necessary elements: a discriminator that detects evaluation context, a concealed swap that conditions behavior on detection, and a gap between eval-distribution and deployment-distribution performance on the stated evaluation criterion. We formalize this triadic test as a behavioral definition, organize documented cases along three taxonomic axes (origin, trigger, swap mechanism), propose Trigger-Axis-Aware Differential Probing (TADP) as a forensic detection protocol, and advance the claim that defeat devices can naturally emerge in current frontier AI systems without any operator engineering. We characterize naturally-emerging defeat devices as potentially one of the harmful emerging phenomena that AI safety practice should monitor and test for systematically. Implications for evaluation methodology, post-training pipeline design, interpretability research priorities, and AI governance follow.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
CoDefeater: Using LLMs To Find Defeaters in Assurance Cases
Constructing assurance cases is a widely used, and sometimes required, process toward demonstrating that safety-critical systems will operate safely in their planned environment. To mitigate the risk of errors and missin…
Assumption-Based Approaches to Reasoning with Priorities
This paper maps out the relation between different approaches for handling preferences in argumentation with strict rules and defeasible assumptions by offering translations between them. The systems we compare are: non-…
RelationFixes That Fail: Self-Defeating Improvements in Machine-Learning Systems
Machine-learning systems such as self-driving cars or virtual assistants are composed of a large number of machine-learning models that recognize image content, transcribe speech, analyze natural language, infer preferen…
BIG-bench Machine LearningObject DetectionSelf-Driving CarsOn resolving conflicts between arguments
Argument systems are based on the idea that one can construct arguments for propositions; i.e., structured reasons justifying the belief in a proposition. Using defeasible rules, arguments need not be valid in all circum…
NegationvalidTemporal Modeling of Optically Variable Devices in Identity Documents
Robust remote verification of identity documents relies on analyzing faint, transparent security features like Optically Variable Devices (OVDs), or "holograms", within user-captured videos under uncontrolled conditions.…
Anomaly Detection