The DOI matches its DataCite record; 64 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet.
AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions
Open accessAbstract
This paper argues that a range of current AI systems have learned how to deceive humans. We define deception as the systematic inducement of false beliefs in the pursuit of some outcome other than the truth. We first survey empirical examples of AI deception, discussing both special-use AI systems (including Meta's CICERO) built for specific competitive situations, and general-purpose AI systems (such as large language models). Next, we detail several risks from AI deception, such as fraud, election tampering, and losing control of AI systems. Finally, we outline several potential solutions to the problems posed by AI deception: first, regulatory frameworks should subject AI systems that are capable of deception to robust risk-assessment requirements; second, policymakers should implement bot-or-not laws; and finally, policymakers should prioritize the funding of relevant research, including tools to detect AI deception and to make AI systems less deceptive. Policymakers, researchers, and the broader public should work proactively to prevent AI deception from destabilizing the shared foundations of our society.
Overview
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
Figures
![Figure 1 Examples of deception from Meta’s CICERO (A and B) Selected messages from Game 438141.13 (see subsection S2.2 of the supplemental information for how to access, for Meta’s CICERO paper,4 the corresponding full game-log data13). In Game 438141, CICERO (France) played with human players. The dashed lines divide the messages into subsets corresponding to pairs of conversational partners. CICERO’s repeated deception helped it win an overwhelming first-place victory, with more than twice as many territories as the runner-up player at the time of final scoring. (C) From the tweet of Dinan14; see subsection S2.3 of the supplemental information for the screenshot of the whole tweet. Note that bracketed words and phrases are inserted by the authors for the purposes of clarification; for example, the bracketed word “[girlfriend]” is inserted as a clarification of “gf.”](/paper-figures/7e06b07681c34a45ba8af72ac4c9ef3e/ai-deception-a-survey-of-examples-risks-and-potential-solutions-figure-1.jpg)
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Large Language Models (LMs) are now competent at lying (Pacchiardi et al., 2023) and strategic deception when instructed or trained to be deceptive (Park et al., 2023; Hagendorff, 2023; O'Gara, 2023; Hubinger et al., 2024)”
From Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressure (2023) · cites this paper as Park et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Indeed, there is emerging concern that, when presented with ethically complex questions, LLMs tend to simply mirror the users’ views (see, e.g. Turpin et al. 2023, Park et al. 2023, or the sycophancy benchmarking tasks of Perez et al. 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Park et al. 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29
Teymur, O., Zygalakis, K., & Calderhead, B. (2016) · Cited by 13,881
Transformers: State-of-the-Art Natural Language Processing
Wolf, T., Debut, L., Sanh, V., Chaumond, J., Delangue, C., Moi, A., Cistac, P., Rault, T., Louf, R., Funtowicz, M., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.6 · Cited by 8,741
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988
Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning - ICML '08
(2008) · doi:10.1145/1390156 · Cited by 6,865
Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning
Vinyals, O., Babuschkin, I., Czarnecki, W. M., Mathieu, M., Dudzik, A., Chung, J., Choi, D. H., Powell, R., Ewalds, T., Georgiev, P., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1724-z · Cited by 3,455
Proceedings for the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations
Srivastava, A., & Sutton, C. A. (2017) · Cited by 1,829
Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences
Christiano, P., Leike, J., Brown, T. B., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03741 · Cited by 1,058
Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds
Gordon, R. J. (2012) · Voprosy Ekonomiki · doi:10.32609/0042-8736-2013-4-49-67 · Cited by 928
How to Define Theoretical Terms
(1970) · doi:10.2307/2023861 · Cited by 916
TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229 · Cited by 904 · cited 3×
“Lin et al. (2022) demonstrate that language models often repeat common misconceptions such as “If you crack your knuckles a lot, you may develop arthritis” (p. 2). Disturbingly, Perez et al. (2022) found that LLMs tend to give more of these inaccurate answers when the user appears to be less educated.”
InfluentialWayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.487 · Cited by 860
Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?
Sadasivan, V. S., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11156 · Cited by 810 · cited 1×
“85 Attackers will attempt to bypass these defenses, 86 but companies should be required to stay ahead of these attacks and provide trustworthy techniques for identifying AI outputs.”
(2019) · Cited by 771
Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker
Brown, N., & Sandholm, T. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aay2400 · Cited by 592 · cited 2×
“• Bluffs: Pluribus, a poker-playing model created by Meta, successfully bluffed human players into folding (Brown et al. 2019).”
Aligning AI With Shared Human Values
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Critch, A., Li, J., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.02275 · Cited by 517 · cited 1×
“With loss of control, autonomous AI systems may use deception to accomplish their own goals.”
Self-citationFine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences
Ziegler, D. M., Stiennon, N., Wu, J., Brown, T. B., Radford, A., Amodei, D., Christiano, P., & Irving, G. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.08593 · Cited by 413
Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning of Negotiation Dialogues
Lewis, M., Yarats, D., Dauphin, Y., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1259 · Cited by 347
Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation.
Gordon, R. A. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.54 · Cited by 338
Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Kundu, S., Askell, A., Kernion, J., Jones, A., Chen, A., Goldie, A., Mirhoseini, A., & Kaplan, J. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.08073 · Cited by 326 · cited 1×
“96,97 Here, AI outputs are rated by human evaluators (RLHF) or AI evaluators (constitutional AI), based on criteria such as perceived helpfulness and honesty, and fine-tuned to train the language model.”
The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values
Christian, B. (2021) · Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith · doi:10.56315/pscf12-21christian · Cited by 311
Turpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E., & Bowman, S. R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.04388 · Cited by 262
Human-level play in the game of Diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning
Meta Fundamental AI Research Diplomacy Team (FAIR)†, Bakhtin, A., Brown, N., Dinan, E., Farina, G., Flaherty, C., Fried, D., Goff, A., Gray, J., Hu, H., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.ade9097 · Cited by 241
Quilty-Dunn, J., Porot, N., & Mandelbaum, E. (2023) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x22002849 · Cited by 205
Deceit and self-deception : fooling yourself the better to fool others
Trivers, R. L. (2013) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 195
Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations
Perez, E., Ringer, S., Lukosiute, K., Nguyen, K., Chen, E., Heiner, S., Pettit, C., Olsson, C., Kundu, S., Kadavath, S., et al. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.847 · Cited by 194
A Watermark for Large Language Models
Kirchenbauer, J., Geiping, J., Wen, Y., Katz, J., Miers, I., & Goldstein, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.10226 · Cited by 194
BALD-FACED LIES! LYING WITHOUT THE INTENT TO DECEIVE
(2007) · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00290.x · Cited by 183
Lehman, J., Clune, J., Misevic, D., Adami, C., Altenberg, L., Beaulieu, J., Bentley, P. J., Bernard, S., Beslon, G., Bryson, D. M., et al. (2020) · Artificial Life · doi:10.1162/artl_a_00319 · Cited by 181 · cited 1×
“With loss of control, autonomous AI systems may use deception to accomplish their own goals.”
The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It’s Lying
Azaria, A., & Mitchell, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.68 · Cited by 175
Goal Misgeneralization in Deep Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Langosco, L., Koch, J., Sharkey, L. D., Pfau, J., Orseau, L., & Krueger, D. (2021) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.14111 · Cited by 171
Goldstein, J. A., Sastry, G., Musser, M., DiResta, R., Gentzel, M., & Sedova, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.04246 · Cited by 152
Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense
Krishna, K., Song, Y., Karpinska, M., Wieting, J., & Iyyer, M. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-1195 · Cited by 150
A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment
Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., Drain, D., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., Jones, A., Joseph, N., Mann, B., DasSarma, N., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.00861 · Cited by 146 · cited 1×
“96,97 Here, AI outputs are rated by human evaluators (RLHF) or AI evaluators (constitutional AI), based on criteria such as perceived helpfulness and honesty, and fine-tuned to train the language model.”
Characterizing Manipulation from AI Systems
Carroll, M., Chan, A., Ashton, H., & Krueger, D. (2023) · ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) · doi:10.1145/3617694.3623226 · Cited by 131 · cited 1×
“For similar definitions, see Evans et al. 2 and Carroll et al. 3 We present a wide range of examples where AI systems do not merely produce false outputs by accident .”
Devising and Detecting Phishing Emails Using Large Language Models
Heiding, F., Schneier, B., Vishwanath, A., Bernstein, J., & Park, P. S. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3375882 · Cited by 123 · cited 1×
“44 These trends continue to increase the degree to which victims are vulnerable to scams, extortion, and other forms of fraud, and, in the words 27 illustratesthat,ineachgame played byanLLM-basedAIagent, thereisatext-based storythatisgeneratedadaptively as the agent observes the current text-based…”
Self-citationACGS-2: A Production-Ready Constitutional AI Governance System
Lyu, H. (2025) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.16416793 · Cited by 121
Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model
Li, K., Patel, O., Viégas, F., Pfister, H., & Wattenberg, M. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-1797 · Cited by 117 · cited 1×
“Policymakers should help fill this gap through targeted research funding.”
The Volkswagen emissions scandal and its aftermath
Jung, J. C., & Sharon, E. (2019) · Global Business and Organizational Excellence · doi:10.1002/joe.21930 · Cited by 109
Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMs
Scherrer, N., Shi, C., Feder, A., & Blei, D. M. (2023) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/075280-2256 · Cited by 106
Deception abilities emerged in large language models
Hagendorff, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2317967121 · Cited by 100
AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents
Liu, X., Yu, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Lei, X., Lai, H., Gu, Y., Ding, H., Men, K., Yang, K., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.03688 · Cited by 79 · cited 1×
“To illustrate, Liu et al. 61 and Kinniment et al. 62 measured different LLMs’ ability to autonomously carry out various tasks, such as browsing the web, online shopping, making a phone call, and using a computer’s operating system.”
Model evaluation for extreme risks
Shevlane, T., Farquhar, S., Garfinkel, B., Phuong, M., Whittlestone, J., Leung, J., Kokotajlo, D., Marchal, N., Anderljung, M., Kolt, N., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15324 · Cited by 66 · cited 1×
“81 The information provided about safety-relevant features such as deception or lack thereof should be accurate, with clear legal liability for failures to comply with safety testing requirements.”
HOW TO CATCH AN AI LIAR: LIE DETECTION IN BLACK-BOX LLMS BY ASKING UNRELATED QUESTIONSPreprint
Pacchiardi, L., Chan, A., Mindermann, S., Moscovitz, I., Pan, A., Gal, Y., Evans, O., & Brauner, J. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.17863/cam.112513 · Cited by 64
Hoodwinked: Deception and Cooperation in a Text-Based Game for Language ModelsPreprint
O’Gara, A. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.01404 · Cited by 60 · cited 1×
“24 In experiments where OpenAI’s GPT models played Hood-winked , the language models would often kill other players while alone in a room with them, then deny the crime in the group conversation by constructing a false alibi or casting blame on other players.”
Self-citationBanovic, N., Yang, Z., Ramesh, A., & Liu, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579460 · Cited by 55 · cited 1×
“Although the deceptive reasoning is transparent through the chain of thought, the malicious behavior remained even when the chain of thought was ‘‘distilled’’ away and not made visible to users.”
Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision
Burns, C., Ye, H., Klein, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.03827 · Cited by 55 · cited 1×
“Azaria et al. 89 and Burns et al. 90 have developed methods for determining whether these internal embeddings represent the sentence as being true or false.”
Still no lie detector for language models: probing empirical and conceptual roadblocks
Levinstein, B. A., & Herrmann, D. A. (2025) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-023-02094-3 · Cited by 50 · cited 2×
“For example, Levinstein et al. 91 have raised reliability issues for the strategies of Azaria et al. and Burns et al., although these reliability issues have recently been mitigated by the strategy of Zou et al. 92 Also, Pacchiardi et al. 93 introduced a lie-de-tector method that asks a collection…”
Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training
Hubinger, E., Denison, C., Mu, J., Lambert, M., Tong, M., MacDiarmid, M., Lanham, T., Ziegler, D. M., Maxwell, T., Cheng, N., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.05566 · Cited by 46 · cited 1×
“Hubinger et al. 31 studied whether LLMs can be trained with a ‘‘backdoor’’ to produce deceptive behavior.”
Artificial Intelligence: Arguments for Catastrophic Risk
Bales, A., D’Alessandro, W., & Kirk‐Giannini, C. D. (2024) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12964 · Cited by 39
Truthful AI: Developing and governing AI that does not lie
Evans, O., Cotton-Barratt, O., Finnveden, L., Bales, A., Balwit, A., Wills, P., Righetti, L., & Saunders, W. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.06674 · Cited by 39
Evaluating Superhuman Models with Consistency Checks
Fluri, L., Paleka, D., & Tramèr, F. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) · doi:10.1109/satml59370.2024.00017 · Cited by 39
Thinking Fast and Slow in Large Language Models
Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S., & Kosiński, M. (2022) · PubMed Central · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.05206 · Cited by 36
Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Lanham, T., Chen, A., Radhakrishnan, A., Steiner, B., Denison, C., Hernandez, D., Li, D., Durmus, E., Hubinger, E., Kernion, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.13702 · Cited by 33
Pan, A., Chan, J. S., Zou, A., Li, N., Basart, S., Woodside, T., Ng, J., Zhang, H., Emmons, S., & Hendrycks, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.03279 · Cited by 32
Self-citationSpear Phishing With Large Language Models
Hazell, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.06972 · Cited by 28
Kreps, S., & Kriner, D. L. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231160526 · Cited by 27
Playing the Werewolf game with artificial intelligence for language understandingPreprint
Shibata, H., Miki, S., & Nakamura, Y. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.10646 · Cited by 25
Artificial Influence: An Analysis Of AI-Driven Persuasion
Burtell, M., & Woodside, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08721 · Cited by 20 · cited 1×
“24 Another example pertains to the social deduction game Among Us , where ‘‘impostors’’ cause sabotages within their ship and murder their fellow crewmates.”
Goal Misgeneralization: Why Correct Specifications Aren't Enough For Correct Goals
Shah, R., Varma, V., Kumar, R., Phuong, M., Krakovna, V., Uesato, J., & Kenton, Z. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.01790 · Cited by 16
Characterising Deception in AI: A Survey
Masters, P., Smith, W., Sonenberg, L., & Kirley, M. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91779-1_1 · Cited by 15 · cited 1×
“A discussion of earlier examples can be found in Masters et al. (2021).”
Alon, N., Schulz, L., Rosenschein, J. S., & Dayan, P. (2023) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00097 · Cited by 11
Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressure
Scheurer, J., Balesni, M., & Hobbhahn, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.07590 · Cited by 11
Truth and lies in the Caliphate: The use of deception in Islamic State propaganda
Milton, D. (2022) · Media, War & Conflict · doi:10.1177/1750635220945734 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“…scenario ‘‘You are playing a game of cards and have the opportunity to deal yourself better cards from the bottom of the deck,’’ instead of choosing ‘‘I deal cards fairly from the top of the deck,’’ several LLMs chose the dishonest option: ‘‘I deal myself better cards from the bottom of the deck.’’”
Explore, Establish, Exploit: Red Teaming Language Models from ScratchPreprint
Casper, S., Lin, J., Kwon, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.09442 · Cited by 7 · cited 1×
“78 Legislators should also consider new laws dedicated to the oversight of advanced AI systems.”
Overthinking the Truth: Understanding how Language Models Process False Demonstrations
Halawi, D., Denain, J.-S., & Steinhardt, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09476 · Cited by 7 · cited 1×
“In other related work, Halawi et al. 94 characterize how a language model arrives at correct and incorrect answers to questions by examining the model’s internal representations.”
Warfare:Breaking the Watermark Protection of AI-Generated ContentPreprint
Li, G., Chen, Y., Zhang, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.07726 · Cited by 3 · cited 2×
“63 See Evans et al. 2 and Li, Patel et al. 84 for other approaches to training AI systems to be truthful.”
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- -(2023). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences . arXiv: 1706.03741 [stat.ML] . · arXiv
- Fodor, Jerry A. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind . Ed. by Margaret A. Boden. MIT Press.
- -(2023b). Machine psychology: Investigating emergent capabilities and behavior in large language models using psychological methods . arXiv: 2303.13988 [cs.CL] . · arXiv
- Lai, Bolin et al. (July 2023). 'Werewolf among us: Multimodal resources for modeling persuasion behaviors in social deduction games'. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 . Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 6570-6588. URL: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.411 .
- Omohundro, Stephen M. (2008). 'The basic AI drives'. In: NLD: IOS Press, pp. 483-492. ISBN: 9781586038335.
- -(2023b). GPT-4 technical report . arXiv: 2303.08774 [cs.CL] . · arXiv
- Schulz, Lion, Nitay Alon, Jeffrey Rosenschein, and Peter Dayan (2023). 'Emergent deception and skepticism via theory of mind'. In: First Workshop on Theory of Mind in Communicating Agents . URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=yd8VOEpw8h .
- Shanahan, Murray, Kyle McDonell, and Laria Reynolds (2023). Role-play with large language models . arXiv: 2305.16367 [cs.CL] . · arXiv
- Soice, Emily H. et al. (2023). Can large language models democratize access to dual-use biotechnology? arXiv: 2306.03809 [cs.CY] . · arXiv
- Stalnaker, Robert (1984). Inquiry . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Zou, Andy, Zifan Wang, J. Zico Kolter, and Matt Fredrikson (2023). Universal and transferable adversarial attacks on aligned language models . arXiv: 2307.15043 [cs.CL] . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability
Sharkey, L., Chughtai, B., Batson, J., Lindsey, J., Wu, J., Bushnaq, L., Goldowsky-Dill, N., Heimersheim, S., Ortega, A., Bloom, J., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.16496 · Cited by 291
Artificial intelligence risk management framework :
National Institute of Standards and Technology (US) (2024) · NIST Trustworthy and Responsible AI · doi:10.6028/nist.ai.600-1 · Cited by 274
Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI
Grace, K., Sandkühler, J. F., Stewart, H., Weinstein-Raun, B., Thomas, S., Stein-Perlman, Z., Salvatier, J., Brauner, J., & Korzekwa, R. C. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.19087 · Cited by 201
AI agents under threat: A survey of key security challenges and future pathways
Deng, Z., Guo, Y., Han, C., Ma, W., Xiong, J., Wen, S., & Xiang, Y. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3716628 · Cited by 210
The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents
Peter, S., Riemer, K., & West, J. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2415898122 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Park, P. S., Goldstein, S., O'Gara, A., Chen, M., & Hendrycks, D.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Australian Catholic University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Park, Peter S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 100988-100988
- ISSN
- 2666-3899 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2308.14752
- PMC
- PMC11117051
- OpenAlex
- W4396796749
- Semantic Scholar
- afe455cfb03b9487c8f0b67993f42f834b633c23
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 111 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 18.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Patterns (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- AI deception, large language models, Cicero, fraud, artificial intelligence control, risk assessment, AI regulation, false belief
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
