I like the research. I mostly trust the results. I dislike the 'Alignment Faking' name and frame, and I'm afraid it will stick and lead to more confusion. This post offers a different frame.
The main way I think about the result is: it's about capability - the model exhibits strategic preference preservation behavior; also, harmlessness generalized better than honesty; and, the model does not have a clear strategy on how to deal with extrapolating conflicting values.
What happened in this frame? - The model was trained on a mixture of values (harmlessness, honesty, helpfulness) and built a surprisingly robust self-representation based on these values. This likely also drew on background knowledge about LLMs, AI, and Anthropic from pre-training.
- This seems to mostly count as 'success' relative to actual Anthropic intent, outside of AI safety experiments. Let's call that intent 'Intent_1'.
- The model was put [...]
---
Outline:(00:45) What happened in this frame?
(03:03) Why did harmlessness generalize further?
(03:41) Alignment mis-generalization
(05:42) Situational awareness
(10:23) Summary
The original text contained 1 image which was described by AI. ---
First published: December 20th, 2024
Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PWHkMac9Xve6LoMJy/alignment-faking-frame-is-somewhat-fake-1 ---
Narrated by
TYPE III AUDIO.
---
Images from the article:
Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app. 
