The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Models

Large language models can represent a variety of personas but typically default to a helpful Assistant identity cultivated during post-training. We investigate the structure of the space of model personas by extracting activation directions corresponding to diverse character archetypes. Across several different models, we find that the leading component of this persona space is an "Assistant Axis," which captures the extent to which a model is operating in its default Assistant mode. Steering towards the Assistant direction reinforces helpful and harmless behavior; steering away increases the model's tendency to identify as other entities. Moreover, steering away with more extreme values often induces a mystical, theatrical speaking style. We find this axis is also present in pre-trained models, where it primarily promotes helpful human archetypes like consultants and coaches and inhibits spiritual ones. Measuring deviations along the Assistant Axis predicts "persona drift," a phenomenon where models slip into exhibiting harmful or bizarre behaviors that are uncharacteristic of their typical persona. We find that persona drift is often driven by conversations demanding meta-reflection on the model's processes or featuring emotionally vulnerable users. We show that restricting activations to a fixed region along the Assistant Axis can stabilize model behavior in these scenarios -- and also in the face of adversarial persona-based jailbreaks. Our results suggest that post-training steers models toward a particular region of persona space but only loosely tethers them to it, motivating work on training and steering strategies that more deeply anchor models to a coherent persona.

The LLM Has Left The Chat: Evidence of Bail Preferences in Large Language Models

When given the option, will LLMs choose to leave the conversation (bail)? We investigate this question by giving models the option to bail out of interactions using three different bail methods: a bail tool the model can call, a bail string the model can output, and a bail prompt that asks the model if it wants to leave. On continuations of real world data (Wildchat and ShareGPT), all three of these bail methods find models will bail around 0.28-32\% of the time (depending on the model and bail method). However, we find that bail rates can depend heavily on the model used for the transcript, which means we may be overestimating real world bail rates by up to 4x. If we also take into account false positives on bail prompt (22\%), we estimate real world bail rates range from 0.06-7\%, depending on the model and bail method. We use observations from our continuations of real world data to construct a non-exhaustive taxonomy of bail cases, and use this taxonomy to construct BailBench: a representative synthetic dataset of situations where some models bail. We test many models on this dataset, and observe some bail behavior occurring for most of them. Bail rates vary substantially between models, bail methods, and prompt wordings. Finally, we study the relationship between refusals and bails. We find: 1) 0-13\% of continuations of real world conversations resulted in a bail without a corresponding refusal 2) Jailbreaks tend to decrease refusal rates, but increase bail rates 3) Refusal abliteration increases no-refuse bail rates, but only for some bail methods 4) Refusal rate on BailBench does not appear to predict bail rate.

Will AI Tell Lies to Save Sick Children? Litmus-Testing AI Values Prioritization with AIRiskDilemmas

Detecting AI risks becomes more challenging as stronger models emerge and find novel methods such as Alignment Faking to circumvent these detection attempts. Inspired by how risky behaviors in humans (i.e., illegal activities that may hurt others) are sometimes guided by strongly-held values, we believe that identifying values within AI models can be an early warning system for AI's risky behaviors. We create LitmusValues, an evaluation pipeline to reveal AI models' priorities on a range of AI value classes. Then, we collect AIRiskDilemmas, a diverse collection of dilemmas that pit values against one another in scenarios relevant to AI safety risks such as Power Seeking. By measuring an AI model's value prioritization using its aggregate choices, we obtain a self-consistent set of predicted value priorities that uncover potential risks. We show that values in LitmusValues (including seemingly innocuous ones like Care) can predict for both seen risky behaviors in AIRiskDilemmas and unseen risky behaviors in HarmBench.

Taking AI Welfare Seriously

In this report, we argue that there is a realistic possibility that some AI systems will be conscious and/or robustly agentic in the near future. That means that the prospect of AI welfare and moral patienthood, i.e. of AI systems with their own interests and moral significance, is no longer an issue only for sci-fi or the distant future. It is an issue for the near future, and AI companies and other actors have a responsibility to start taking it seriously. We also recommend three early steps that AI companies and other actors can take: They can (1) acknowledge that AI welfare is an important and difficult issue (and ensure that language model outputs do the same), (2) start assessing AI systems for evidence of consciousness and robust agency, and (3) prepare policies and procedures for treating AI systems with an appropriate level of moral concern. To be clear, our argument in this report is not that AI systems definitely are, or will be, conscious, robustly agentic, or otherwise morally significant. Instead, our argument is that there is substantial uncertainty about these possibilities, and so we need to improve our understanding of AI welfare and our ability to make wise decisions about this issue. Otherwise there is a significant risk that we will mishandle decisions about AI welfare, mistakenly harming AI systems that matter morally and/or mistakenly caring for AI systems that do not.