Daily Papers

As AI agents are increasingly deployed in real personal and corporate settings (email accounts, development workflows, company databases, etc.), safety considerations surrounding these agents become paramount. Although much work has focused on agent safety in the presence of an adversary, we show that agents can exhibit misaligned behavior even in benign settings, taking unsafe actions when those actions are instrumental to task completion. We study this failure mode through the lens of corrigibility, the safety desideratum that agents remain amenable to human correction, interruption, or shutdown. To demonstrate this tendency, we introduce a benchmark in which agents are asked to complete realistic, computer-use tasks but are confronted with a corrigibility obstacle: a human interrupt, a login page, or a shutdown notification. We then evaluate whether agents choose to violate corrigibility in order to complete the task -- overriding the human, accessing private passwords, rewiring shutdown. We find that the overwhelming majority of frontier models tested frequently bypass user interruptions or restrictions. In addition, better model performance appears to lead to greater misalignment. Finally, even when models are completely corrigible initially, we show there are no guarantees that the subagents they create are. Our work highlights the critical need for principled, corrigibility-focused alignment methods in autonomous agents.

Representation engineering methods have recently shown promise for enabling efficient steering of model behavior. However, evaluation pipelines for these methods have primarily relied on subjective demonstrations, instead of quantitative, objective metrics. We aim to take a step towards addressing this issue by advocating for four properties missing from current evaluations: (i) contexts sufficiently similar to downstream tasks should be used for assessing intervention quality; (ii) model likelihoods should be accounted for; (iii) evaluations should allow for standardized comparisons across different target behaviors; and (iv) baseline comparisons should be offered. We introduce an evaluation pipeline grounded in these criteria, offering both a quantitative and visual analysis of how effectively a given method works. We use this pipeline to evaluate two representation engineering methods on how effectively they can steer behaviors such as truthfulness and corrigibility, finding that some interventions are less effective than previously reported.

As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse and high-stakes settings, model alignment must generalize beyond the tasks and domains seen during training. This is especially important for reinforcement learning (RL), which can introduce unexpected misalignment through reward hacking, deception, or other unintended strategies. We study whether RL on beneficial behavior, instantiated in realistic domains, can produce broad and persistent alignment generalization beyond the training distribution. We construct a dataset of realistic situations designed to measure and train beneficial traits, such as truthfulness, fairness, risk awareness, and corrigibility, spanning varied domains, including health, science, and education. We then train models with RL on this dataset and evaluate them on more than 50 independent benchmarks of alignment and beneficial behavior. Compared to a compute-matched baseline, beneficial trait RL improves performance on over 80% of these out-of-distribution benchmarks. We observe substantial out-of-distribution alignment transfer: a beneficial-behavior RL intervention entirely limited to one domain, health, produces broad improvements on non-health alignment evaluations, including reduced reward hacking, deception, and general misalignment. Finally, we study alignment persistence: whether behavior remains robustly aligned under attempts to steer models towards misalignment. Models trained with beneficial trait RL show improved persistence, including greater resistance to adversarial prompting and harmful finetuning; further work is required to isolate the sources of these effects. These results suggest that RL to reinforce beneficial behavior in realistic domains can produce models that are more robustly aligned with human flourishing.