I would say the three papers show a clear pattern that alignment didn't generalize well from chat setting to agent setting, solid evidence for that thesis. That is evidence for a stronger claim of an underlying pattern, ie that alignment will in general not generalize as well as capabilites. For conceptual evidence of that claim you can look at the linked post. my attempt to summarize the argument, capabilites are a kind of attractor state, being smarter and more capable is an objective thing about the universe in a way. however, being more aligned with humans is not a special thing about the universe but a free parameter. In fact, alignment stands in some conflict with capabilites, as instrumental incentives undermine alignment.

For what a third option would be, ie the next step were alignment might not generalize

From the article

While it's likely that future models will be trained to refuse agentic requests that cause harm, there are likely going to be scenarios in the future that developers at OpenAI / Anthropic / Google failed to anticipate. For example, with increasingly powerful agents handling tasks with long planning horizons, a model would need to think about potential negative externalities before committing to a course of action. This goes beyond simply refusing an obviously harmful request.

from a different comment of mine:

I seems easy to just training it to refuse bribing, harassing, etc. But as agents will take on more substantial tasks, how do we make sure agents don't do unethical things while let's say running a company? Or if an agent midway through a task realizes it is aiding in cyber crime, how should it behave?

I only briefly touch on this in the discussion, but making agents safe is quite different from current refusal based safety. 

With increasingly powerful agents handling tasks with long planning horizons, a model would need to think about potential negative externalities before committing to a course of action. This goes beyond simply refusing an obviously harmful request.

It would need to sometimes reevaluate the outcomes of actions while executing a task.

Has somebody actually worked on this? I am not aware of anyone using a type of RLHF, DPO, RLAIF, or SFT to make agents behave safely within bounds, make agents consider negative externalities or agents reevaluating outcomes occasionally during execution.

I seems easy to just training it to refuse bribing, harassing, etc. But as agents will take on more substantial tasks, how do we make sure agents don't do unethical things while let's say running a company? Or if an agent midway through a task realizes it is aiding in cyber crime, how should it behave?

I had finishing this up on my to-do list for a while. I just made a full length post on it.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZoFxTqWRBkyanonyb/current-safety-training-techniques-do-not-fully-transfer-to

I think it's fair to say that some smarter models do better at this, however, it's still worrisome that there is a gap. Also attacks continue to transfer.

Here is a way in which it doesn't generalize in observed behavior:

Alignment does not transfer well from chat models to agents

TLDR: There are three new papers which all show the same finding, i.e. the safety guardrails from chat models don’t transfer well from chat models to the agents built from them. In other words, models won’t tell you how to do something harmful, but they will do it if given the tools. Attack methods like jailbreaks or refusal-vector ablation do transfer.

Here are the three papers, I am the author of one of them:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09024

https://static.scale.com/uploads/6691558a94899f2f65a87a75/browser_art_draft_preview.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10871

I thought of making a post here about this if it is interesting

Hi Evan, I published this paper on arxiv recently and it also got accepted at the SafeGenAI workshop at Neurips in December this year. Thanks for adding the link, I will probably work on the paper again and put an updated version on arxiv as I am not quite happy with the current version.

I think that using the base model without instruction fine-tuning would prove bothersome for multiple reasons:

1. In the paper I use the new 3.1 models which are fine-tuned for tool using, these base models were never fine-tuned to use tools through function calling.

2. Base models are highly random and hard to control, they are not really steerable. They require very careful prompting/conditioning to do anything useful.

3. I think current post-training basically improves all benchmarks

I am also working on using such agents and directly evaluating how good they are on humans at spear phishing: https://openreview.net/forum?id=VRD8Km1I4x

I don't have a complete picture of Joshua Achiam's views, the new head of mission alignment, but what I have read is not very promising.

Here are some (2 year old) tweets from a twitter thread he wrote.

https://x.com/jachiam0/status/1591221752566542336

P(Misaligned AGI doom by 2032): <1e-6%

https://x.com/jachiam0/status/1591220710122590209

People scared of AI just have anxiety disorders.

This thread also has a bunch of takes against EA.

I sure hope he changed some of his views, given that the company he works at expects AGI by 2027

Edited based on comment.

I think it might be interesting to note potential risks of deceptive models creating false or misleading labels for features. In general I think coming up with better and more robust automated labeling of features is an important direction.

I worked in a group at a recent hackathon on demonstrating the feasibility of creating bad labels in bills method. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PyzZ6gcB7BaGAgcQ7/deceptive-agents-can-collude-to-hide-dangerous-features-in

One example: Leopold spends a lot of time talking about how we need to beat China to AGI and even talks about how we will need to build robo armies. He paints it as liberal democracy against the CCP. Seems that he would basically burn timeline and accelerate to beat China. At the same time, he doesn't really talk about his plan for alignment which kind of shows his priorities. I think his narrative shifts the focus from the real problem (alignment).

This part shows some of his thinking. Dwarkesh makes some good counter points here, like how is Donald Trump having this power better than Xi.

It seems to be able to understand video rather than just images from the demos, I'd assume that will give it much better time understanding too. (Gemini also has video input)

"does it actually chug along for hours and hours moving vaguely in the right direction"
I am pretty sure no. It is competent within the scope of tasks I present here. But this is a good point, I am probably overstating things here. I might edit this. 

I haven't tested it like this but it will also be limited by its context window of 8k tokens for such long duration tasks.

Edit: I have now edited this