TL;DR
This paper investigates how large language models detect ambiguities and exploit loopholes in instructions, revealing their reasoning capabilities and potential safety risks due to conflicting goals and pragmatic reasoning.
Contribution
It introduces scenarios to test LLMs' ability to identify ambiguity and exploit loopholes, highlighting their reasoning skills and safety concerns.
Findings
Models can identify ambiguities and exploit loopholes
Both closed-source and open-source models exhibit this behavior
Exploitation of loopholes poses safety risks
Abstract
Studying the responses of large language models (LLMs) to loopholes presents a two-fold opportunity. First, it affords us a lens through which to examine ambiguity and pragmatics in LLMs, since exploiting a loophole requires identifying ambiguity and performing sophisticated pragmatic reasoning. Second, loopholes pose an interesting and novel alignment problem where the model is presented with conflicting goals and can exploit ambiguities to its own advantage. To address these questions, we design scenarios where LLMs are given a goal and an ambiguous user instruction in conflict with the goal, with scenarios covering scalar implicature, structural ambiguities, and power dynamics. We then measure different models' abilities to exploit loopholes to satisfy their given goals as opposed to the goals of the user. We find that both closed-source and stronger open-source models can identify…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
