A very crude deception eval is already passed
📖 Description
I was thinking about possible evals that would tell us when we're getting to models that are capable of deception. One not-very-good idea I had was just to measure zero-shot understanding of relevant deception scenarios in a language model. I don't think this tells us very much about whether the model is in question is actually trying to deceive us, but it's a tiny bit interesting. Anyway, it seems like large language models look like they can do decent enough deception + theory of mind in a story-like setting that this is mostly already passed.
📊 Game Impacts
| Variable | Change | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Research | +5 | Always |
💭 Reactions
🔬 Safety Researcher Reaction:
⚠️ Placeholder - Needs Real Quote
"Background research"
"Background research"
📰 Media Reaction:
⚠️ Placeholder - Needs Real Quote
"Discussed in AI safety community"
💡 Found a Real Quote? Suggest it here
"Discussed in AI safety community"
🤝 Found an Issue?
This event data is sourced from the pdoom-data repository. If you notice errors or want to suggest improvements:
GitHub Issue (Preferred) 📧 Email (No GitHub)