Alignment of Language Agents
Open accessAbstract
For artificial intelligence to be beneficial to humans the behaviour of AI agents needs to be aligned with what humans want. In this paper we discuss some behavioural issues for language agents, arising from accidental misspecification by the system designer. We highlight some ways that misspecification can occur and discuss some behavioural issues that could arise from misspecification, including deceptive or manipulative language, and review some approaches for avoiding these issues.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Large language models often express unintended behaviors such as making up facts, generating biased or toxic text, or simply not following user instructions.
“However, these models often express unintended behaviors such as making up facts, generating biased or toxic text, or simply not following user instructions (Bender et al., 2021; Bommasani et al., 2021; Kenton et al., 2021; Weidinger et al., 2021; Tamkin et al., 2021; Gehman et al., 2020).”
From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Kenton et al., 2021
The Introduction describes unintended behavior in language systems, and §5.3 says language agents may produce harmful and biased output. The discussion of deception mentions untrue statements and incorrect answers, but the paper does not establish that these behaviors occur often or specifically describe failures to follow user instructions. Page numbers were not supplied for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarge language models can generate outputs that are untruthful, toxic, or simply not helpful to the user.
“For example, large language models can generate outputs that are untruthful, toxic, or simply not helpful to the user.”
From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Kenton et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 66 · Cited by 45
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- D. Amodei, C. Olah, J. Steinhardt, P. Christiano, J. Schulman, and D. Mané. Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565, 2016. · arXiv
- S. Armstrong and X. O'Rorke. Good and safe uses of AI oracles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05541, 2017. · arXiv
- S. Armstrong, A. Sandberg, and N. Bostrom. Think- ing inside the box: Controlling and using an oracle AI. Minds and Machines, 22(4):299–324, 2012.
- M. Baron. The mens rea and moral status of ma- nipulation. In C. Coons and M. Weber, editors, Manipulation: theory and practice. Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2014.
- Y. Belinkov and J. Glass. Analysis methods in neural language processing: A survey. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7: 49–72, 2019.
- J. S. Blumenthal-Barby. Between reason and co- ercion: ethically permissible influence in health care and health policy contexts. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22(4):345–366, 2012.
- N. Bostrom. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press, 2014.
- T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Ka- plan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language mod- els are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020. · arXiv
- P. Christiano, B. Shlegeris, and D. Amodei. Su- pervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08575, 2018. · arXiv
- P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30:4299– 4307, 2017.
- A. D'Amour, K. Heller, D. Moldovan, B. Adlam, B. Alipanahi, A. Beutel, C. Chen, J. Deaton, J. Eisenstein, M. D. Hoffman, et al. Under- specification presents challenges for credibility in modern machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.03395, 2020. · arXiv
- M. Danilevsky, K. Qian, R. Aharonov, Y. Katsis, B. Kawas, and P. Sen. A survey of the state of explainable AI for natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.00711, 2020. · arXiv
- D. C. Dennett. The intentional stance. MIT press, 1989.
- R. Dunbar et al. Theory of mind and the evolu- tion of language. Approaches to the Evolution of Language, pages 92–110, 1998.
- T. Everitt, G. Lea, and M. Hutter. AGI safety liter- ature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01109, 2018. · arXiv
- T. Everitt, R. Kumar, V. Krakovna, and S. Legg. Mod- eling AGI safety frameworks with causal influ- ence diagrams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08663, 2019a. · arXiv
- T. Everitt, P. A. Ortega, E. Barnes, and S. Legg. Understanding agent incentives using causal in- fluence diagrams. part i: Single action settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09980, 2019b. · arXiv
- T. Everitt, R. Carey, E. Langlois, P. A. Ortega, and S. Legg. Agent incentives: A causal perspective. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 35 (Feb. 2021), AAAI'21, 2021a.
- T. Fornaciari and M. Poesio. Automatic deception detection in italian court cases. Artificial intelli- gence and law, 21(3):303–340, 2013.
- Authors
- Kenton, Z., Everitt, T., Weidinger, L., Gabriel, I., Mikulik, V., & Irving, G.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2103.14659
- OpenAlex
- W3148330722
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- language agents, AI alignment, model misspecification, language manipulation, agent behavior, human-AI interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
