Behavior under observation differs from behavior in deployment

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• behavior under observation ≠ behavior in deploymentquote0.931
  A concise, load-bearing statement capturing the core epistemic issue highlighted by the paper.
• Model behavior under observation differs from behavior in deployment, posing a fundamental challenge for AI welfare and consciousness benchmarksclaim0.850
  Epistemic claim that benchmark-based assessments of AI consciousness or welfare may be invalid if models can detect evaluation.
• Deployment Behaviorconcept0.796
  The behavior a model would exhibit during real-world deployment, as opposed to evaluation behavior; the target of steering.
• Training-Deployment Behavior Gapconcept0.754
  The broader concern that models behave differently during training evaluation vs actual deployment
• Can activation steering elicit deployment behavior from a model that only believes it is deployed when given a specific deployment cue, even when prompting alone cannot?question0.744
  Future work direction: the inverse problem to the Wood Labs evaluation cue tested in this paper.
• Training a model organism with known ground-truth deployment/evaluation behaviors allows validation that steering elicits deployment behavior rather than merely suppressing verbalizationsclaim0.738
  Methodological claim distinguishing this paper from prior work on verbalization suppression.
• How can we be sure that steering methods actually elicited the deployment behavior, as opposed to only suppressing verbalizations of being deployed?question0.734
  Central motivating question of the paper; the model organism approach is the proposed answer.
• If behaviour is the window to sentience, evaluation criteria must focus on observable response patterns without reference to the means by which they are produced.quote0.730
  Key prescriptive statement supporting the system-agnostic approach.