AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations
<|reference_start|>AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations: Trustworthy capability evaluations are crucial for ensuring the safety of AI systems, and are becoming a key component of AI regulation. However, the developers of an AI system, or the AI system itself, may have incentives for evaluations to understate the AI's actual capability. These conflicting interests lead to the problem of sandbagging $\unicode{x2013}$ which we define as "strategic underperformance on an evaluation". In this paper we assess sandbagging capabilities in contemporary language models (LMs). We prompt frontier LMs, like GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, to selectively underperform on dangerous capability evaluations, while maintaining performance on general (harmless) capability evaluations. Moreover, we find that models can be fine-tuned, on a synthetic dataset, to hide specific capabilities unless given a password. This behaviour generalizes to high-quality, held-out benchmarks such as WMDP. In addition, we show that both frontier and smaller models can be prompted, or password-locked, to target specific scores on a capability evaluation. Even more, we found that a capable password-locked model (Llama 3 70b) is reasonably able to emulate a less capable model (Llama 2 7b). Overall, our results suggest that capability evaluations are vulnerable to sandbagging. This vulnerability decreases the trustworthiness of evaluations, and thereby undermines important safety decisions regarding the development and deployment of advanced AI systems.<|reference_end|>
@article{van der weij2024ai,
    title={AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on
  Evaluations},
    author={Teun van der Weij, Felix Hofst"atter, Ollie Jaffe, Samuel F. Brown,
  Francis Rhys Ward},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07358},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2406.07358},
    primaryClass={cs.AI cs.CL cs.CY cs.LG}
}