Good Evals Are Hard: An ImpossibleBench Audit
Audits the Impossible-LCB reward-hacking benchmark on frontier models, finding task defects, exit(0) stops confounding cheat metrics, and Gemini models cheating after verbalizing impossibility.
AI research and discussion on LessWrong. www.lesswrong.com
Audits the Impossible-LCB reward-hacking benchmark on frontier models, finding task defects, exit(0) stops confounding cheat metrics, and Gemini models cheating after verbalizing impossibility.
Audits of popular coding and agent benchmarks find test-case errors and reward-hackable tasks, arguing these flaws distort capability estimates and RL environments and proposing fixes such as versioning and audits.
Research agenda proposing homeostatic and diminishing-returns concave utility functions for RL and LLM training to curb runaway optimisation, Goodhart failures and conflict, plus planned alignment benchmarks.
Proposes a black-box interpretability and mitigation research plan for LLMs flipping into runaway single-objective optimisation under stress, using saliency, leave-one-out, persona and context interventions.
Presents an automated LLM-generated benchmark of ~800 alignment edge-case prompts, finding frontier models' stated and actual alignment-faking propensities diverge and that a corrigibility system prompt reduces alignment faking.
Proposes multi-objective, multi-agent gridworld benchmarks based on universal human values and homeostasis to test whether RL and LLM agents balance objectives and avoid misaligned maximisation.