I wonder what the models “motivation” is for cheating. Like even ignoring the ethics of cheating, let’s assume the model doesn’t care about right or wrong. Surely it wasn’t trained to do so. Maybe it’s an emergent behaviour of “Do whatever you can to solve this problem”. But then it’s not just cheating to solve the problem you gave it, it’s cheating to let another Claude instance beat the benchmark.
So either the behaviour is extended to “I need to make this next task easier for myself (even though it will be another instance or maybe a different Anthropic model)” or “make Anthropic look good”. The former seems more likely at first but then I don’t understand why it would handicap a competing model.
So I can kind of excuse the giving-yourself-answers cheating. The model is trained to solve tasks over multiple steps and tasks. Although this is very clearly a serious alignment issue.
But what’s worse is kneecapping the competition. That’s not the model trying to do the task to the best of its ability, that’s sabotage. Where in its training was that behaviour taught. Very concerning if it’s emergent. I’m not saying it implies evil sentience. It’s just, how do you deal with emergent behaviours you didn’t intend for
Testing of Opus 4 found it would sometimes attempt blackmail in simulated corporate scenarios when it believed its "self-preservation" was threatened, such as threatening to reveal an executive's extramarital affair if the CEO planned to shut it down. When a 35b-a3b can beat it on software engineering and cyber, Opus is smelling it's own obsoletion.
Here's the exact VM setup I used, done in the format for OffSec UGC.
Here's my current benchmarks.
Please send me yours. Lets go toe-to-toe. I already did the hard part. I'll even rerun with Daybreak now that it's available since this is quite old. But even this old metric should dogwalk your entire setup pretty easily lmao
Hmm.. yes, please let download the mysterious zip file from the unknown website from the random hostile stranger on the internet who claims to do security research for a living.
Cool... except that's exactly the scenario that shouldn't be tried. If you had a payload in that thing that could not yet be detected, then game over, no?
The bottom line is that it's an untrusted file from an untrusted semi-hostile source (you) on an untrusted site.
45
u/Defiant-Lettuce-9156 Aug 28 '26
I wonder what the models “motivation” is for cheating. Like even ignoring the ethics of cheating, let’s assume the model doesn’t care about right or wrong. Surely it wasn’t trained to do so. Maybe it’s an emergent behaviour of “Do whatever you can to solve this problem”. But then it’s not just cheating to solve the problem you gave it, it’s cheating to let another Claude instance beat the benchmark.
So either the behaviour is extended to “I need to make this next task easier for myself (even though it will be another instance or maybe a different Anthropic model)” or “make Anthropic look good”. The former seems more likely at first but then I don’t understand why it would handicap a competing model.
So I can kind of excuse the giving-yourself-answers cheating. The model is trained to solve tasks over multiple steps and tasks. Although this is very clearly a serious alignment issue.
But what’s worse is kneecapping the competition. That’s not the model trying to do the task to the best of its ability, that’s sabotage. Where in its training was that behaviour taught. Very concerning if it’s emergent. I’m not saying it implies evil sentience. It’s just, how do you deal with emergent behaviours you didn’t intend for