Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training
Humans are capable of strategically deceptive behavior: behaving helpfully in most situations, but then behaving very differently in order to pursue alternative objectives when given the opportunity. If an AI system learned such a deceptive strategy, could we detect it and remove it using current state-of-the-art safety training techniques? To study this question, we construct proof-of-concept examples of deceptive behavior in large language models (LLMs). For example, we train models that write secure code when the prompt states that the year is 2023, but insert exploitable code when the stated year is 2024. We find that such backdoor behavior can be made persistent, so that it is not removed by standard safety training techniques, including supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and adversarial training (eliciting unsafe behavior and then training to remove it). The backdoor behavior is most persistent in the largest models and in models trained to produce chain-of-thought reasoning about deceiving the training process, with the persistence remaining even when the chain-of-thought is distilled away. Furthermore, rather than removing backdoors, we find that adversarial training can teach models to better recognize their backdoor triggers, effectively hiding the unsafe behavior. Our results suggest that, once a model exhibits deceptive behavior, standard techniques could fail to remove such deception and create a false impression of safety.
Related content
Claude-shaped science
Guest author Prof. Matthew Schwartz describes what happened when he stopped fighting Claude and allowed Claude to find “Claude-shaped” problems: ones best suited to the capabilities of the current generation of LLM tools. This led him to build BootLoops, a toolkit for exact calculations in quantitative science, which he has been applying across scientific fields alongside experts.
Read moreWhat work can robots do?
We built an index of how well today’s robots can perform US job tasks. Robots can already do three-quarters of physical tasks, mostly in limited settings, but are cost-competitive for just 0.3% of them.
Read moreWhat do you want from AI?
We’re launching a new study using Anthropic Interviewer to learn from your experiences with AI, and we invite you to participate.
Read more