Large Language Models as Misleading Assistants in Conversation

Large Language Models (LLMs) are able to provide assistance on a wide range of information-seeking tasks. However, model outputs may be misleading, whether unintentionally or in cases of intentional deception. We investigate the ability of LLMs to be deceptive in the context of providing assistance on a reading comprehension task, using LLMs as proxies for human users. We compare outcomes of (1) when the model is prompted to provide truthful assistance, (2) when it is prompted to be subtly misleading, and (3) when it is prompted to argue for an incorrect answer. Our experiments show that GPT-4 can effectively mislead both GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4, with deceptive assistants resulting in up to a 23% drop in accuracy on the task compared to when a truthful assistant is used. We also find that providing the user model with additional context from the passage partially mitigates the influence of the deceptive model. This work highlights the ability of LLMs to produce misleading information and the effects this may have in real-world situations.

Foundational Moral Values for AI Alignment

Solving the AI alignment problem requires having clear, defensible values towards which AI systems can align. Currently, targets for alignment remain underspecified and do not seem to be built from a philosophically robust structure. We begin the discussion of this problem by presenting five core, foundational values, drawn from moral philosophy and built on the requisites for human existence: survival, sustainable intergenerational existence, society, education, and truth. We show that these values not only provide a clearer direction for technical alignment work, but also serve as a framework to highlight threats and opportunities from AI systems to both obtain and sustain these values.

GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark

We present GPQA, a challenging dataset of 448 multiple-choice questions written by domain experts in biology, physics, and chemistry. We ensure that the questions are high-quality and extremely difficult: experts who have or are pursuing PhDs in the corresponding domains reach 65% accuracy (74% when discounting clear mistakes the experts identified in retrospect), while highly skilled non-expert validators only reach 34% accuracy, despite spending on average over 30 minutes with unrestricted access to the web (i.e., the questions are "Google-proof"). The questions are also difficult for state-of-the-art AI systems, with our strongest GPT-4 based baseline achieving 39% accuracy. If we are to use future AI systems to help us answer very hard questions, for example, when developing new scientific knowledge, we need to develop scalable oversight methods that enable humans to supervise their outputs, which may be difficult even if the supervisors are themselves skilled and knowledgeable. The difficulty of GPQA both for skilled non-experts and frontier AI systems should enable realistic scalable oversight experiments, which we hope can help devise ways for human experts to reliably get truthful information from AI systems that surpass human capabilities.

A Multi-Level Framework for the AI Alignment Problem

AI alignment considers how we can encode AI systems in a way that is compatible with human values. The normative side of this problem asks what moral values or principles, if any, we should encode in AI. To this end, we present a framework to consider the question at four levels: Individual, Organizational, National, and Global. We aim to illustrate how AI alignment is made up of value alignment problems at each of these levels, where values at each level affect the others and effects can flow in either direction. We outline key questions and considerations of each level and demonstrate an application of this framework to the topic of AI content moderation.