AI Red-Teaming · Anthropic · Alignment Forum
Red-teaming by humans is a vital part of model safety testing
Compiled by KHAO Editorial — aggregated from 1 source. See llms.txt for citation guidance.
◌ Single Source
To test whether automated safety techniques could scale (which would allow them to turn more compute into progressively more safety confidence), Alignment Forum set up a deliberately one-sided game as a first test.
Key facts
- The reporter is pretty surprised that this seems to be a similar hill-climbing scaffold to the one from the automated weak-to-strong research post ~6 months ago
- Red-teaming by humans is a vital part of model safety testing, but it may struggle to keep up as models improve
- Given enough attempts, it succeeded, mostly by hiding the behavior in fiction and roleplay
- Examples like these could represent a possible gap in current training monitoring defenses and could be used to test and improve future monitors
Summary
Red-teaming by humans is a vital part of model safety testing, but it may struggle to keep up as models improve. Given enough attempts, it succeeded, mostly by hiding the behavior in fiction and roleplay. New Anthropic research: Automating subtle emergent misalignment research. Red-teaming is a vital part of model safety testing, but it’s also limited by researchers’ time. The reporter is pretty surprised that this seems to be a similar hill-climbing scaffold to the one from the automated weak-to-strong research post ~6 months ago? There is a belief among large parts of the 3rd party safety community that alignment requires the kind of research which cannot easily be hillclimbed. And, even if one obtains good scores on the metrics, it's not clear how this corresponds to improved alignment.