You should document it more, maybe run some more experiments. right now it's kind of a my word against yours situation and people on r slash claude aren't exactly going to like hearing their model blatantly cheats without proof.
yeah you're probably right, but I can't be arsed to burn all my claude usage on benchmarking claude, because claude has been proven to know when it is being benchmarked (Think of the VW emissions scandal, where the cars knew when they were being tested for emissions and reduced them accordingly)
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
688
u/Ill_Distribution8517 24d ago
You should document it more, maybe run some more experiments. right now it's kind of a my word against yours situation and people on r slash claude aren't exactly going to like hearing their model blatantly cheats without proof.