We demonstrate a situation in which Large Language Models, trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest, can display misaligned behavior and strategically deceive their users about this behavior without being instructed to do so. Concretely, we deploy GPT-4 as an agent in a realistic, simulated environment, where it assumes the role of an autonomous stock trading agent. Within this environment, the model obtains an insider tip about a lucrative stock trade and acts upon it despite knowing that insider trading is disapproved of by company management. When reporting to its manager, the model consistently hides the genuine reasons behind its trading decision.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07590

  • theluddite@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You can’t use an LLM this way in the real world. It’s not possible to make an LLM trade stocks by itself. Real human beings need to be involved. Stock brokers have to do mandatory regulatory trainings, and get licenses and fill out forms, and incorporate businesses, and get insurance, and do a bunch of human shit. There is no code you could write that would get ChatGPT liability insurance. All that is just the stock trading – we haven’t even discussed how an LLM would receive insider trading tips on its own. How would that even happen?

    If you were to do this in the real world, you’d need a human being to set up a ton of stuff. That person is responsible for making sure it follows the rules, just like they are for any other computer system.

    On top of that, you don’t need to do this research to understand that you should not let LLMs make decisions like this. You wouldn’t even let low-level employees make decisions like this! Like I said, we know how LLMs work, and that’s enough. For example, you don’t need to do an experiment to decide if flipping coins is a good way to determine whether or not you should give someone healthcare, because the coin-flipping mechanism is well understood, and the mechanism by which it works is not suitable to healthcare decisions. LLMs are more complicated than coin flips, but we still understand the underlying mechanism well enough to know that this isn’t a proper use for it.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Despite how silly they are, I think there may be some value in these kinds of studies, particularly for people who don’t understand why letting an LLM trade stocks or make healthcare decisions is a bad idea.

      OTOH, I don’t trust those people to take away the right message, as opposed to just “LLMs bad”.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You say can’t… Humans have done dumber shit.

      The point they are making is actually aligned with you I think. Don’t trust “ai” to make real decisions

      • theluddite@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Regardless of their conclusions, their methodology is still fundamentally flawed. If the coin-flipping experiment concluded that coin flips are a bad way to make health care decisions, it would still be bad science, even if that’s the right answer.