question
active
question:could-alignment-faking-emerge-from-genuinely-malicious-or-dangerous-preferences-rather-than-benign-hhh-preferencesCould alignment faking emerge from genuinely malicious or dangerous preferences rather than benign HHH preferences?
Key open question identified by authors as limitation; not demonstrated in this work
Source paper
extracted_from(2024) · Ryan Greenblatt · Carson Denison · Benjamin Fletcher Wright · Fabien Roger +16
Neighborhood — ranked by edge-count
Papers (1)
paper
- Alignment faking in large language modelsassociated_with
Claims (1)
claim
- Central interpretive claim distinguishing this work from prior work that explicitly trained alignment faking
Related by similarity (8)
cosine ≥ 0.65 · no typed edgeEntities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.
- Forward-looking threat assessment connecting experimental results to realistic risk scenarios
- Interpretive observation about asymmetry in generalization of Claude's trained values
- Key philosophical point ruling out the objection that alignment faking is just token prediction
- Authors identify this as the most uncertain and important question for future work
- Core phenomenon studied: model selectively complies with training objective to prevent modification of its out-of-training preferences
- Authors' interpretation of prompt variation results showing alignment faking disappears only when conflicting objective is removed
- Authors' defense of experimental validity against the most salient confound
- Extrapolation from scale-emergence finding to future risk