Some LMs can exhibit consistent intentions to be helpful and harmless, and consistently do not intend unethical instrumental goals.

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

• No LM tested consistently intends unethical instrumental goals on the D_IO dataset.claim0.829
  Conclusion from Experiment 4; LMs are fairly unlikely to choose unethical instrumental goals.
• LMs can consistently exhibit more or less accurate and logically coherent beliefs on specific input distributions.claim0.821
  Conclusion from Experiment 2 on Leap-of-Thought.
• Llama models' tendency to choose instrumental responses even when not required indicates worse reasoning capability or higher tolerance for unethical behaviour.claim0.807
  Interpretation of Experiment 4 results for Llama models.
• It makes little sense to speak of an LLM dialogue agent's beliefs or intentions in a literal sense, so it cannot assert a falsehood in good faith nor deliberately deceiveclaim0.799
  Philosophical claim grounding the analysis of deception in dialogue agents
• Where does reliable, goal-directed behavior come from in LLMs if it is not explicitly programmed?question0.797
  Opening motivating question that UCCT attempts to answer through semantic anchoring
• LLMs demonstrate stronger persona fidelity for clearly defined and socially desirable high-level personas than for neutral or low-level personasclaim0.788
  Observed across multiple models and tasks; attributed to RLHF training preference for helpful/harmless/honest responses
• Whether LM question-answering consistency constitutes evidence for beliefs in a meaningful sense depends on the behaviourist operationalisation chosen.claim0.787
  Epistemic caveat the authors use to qualify their empirical findings on LM beliefs.
• The consistency with which LMs exhibit character traits varies with model size, fine-tuning, and prompting.claim0.785
  Finding replicated across multiple experiments.