Boy is this going to make the whole field fun!

(As if the overt stuff was not "blackboxy" enough, now this? ...

... I mean, how are we (computationally, even), going to account for all the OOB stuff?

Well, this is what you might call sub-optimal news.

It will not be easy to correct future misaligned AIs if just training them on the output of a previous LLM is enough to transfer its old set of preferences over through random-looking side-band noise.

We might pretend we're not directly using the previous LLM's output to train the next one, but when AI companies scrape the Internet so aggressively that websites cannot keep up with the load, the LLM output from the previous models that's all over the internet is coming along for the ride.

This is good news for the Hs working in RLHF?

Maybe the same hidden knowledge transfer is present on human communication.

WOW what an interesting result! This posits that either there’s a degree of conceptual interconnectivity within these models that’s far greater than we’d expect or that whatever final mechanism the model is using to actually pick what token to return is both more generalized and much more susceptible to the training data than expected. To the degree to which we can talk about the “intelligence” of these models, this puts that even further outside the human model than before.

I’ll say I do think one aspect of how these models work that’s implicated here is that they’re more tightly connected than the human brain - that there’s less specialization and more re-use and broad network activation than what you see in a human brain.

I really like Anthropic’s research division - they’ve been putting together a really interesting collection of data on how the models work internally.

This is actually not that surprising. Models have all sorts of spurious connections across (what humans would assume to be) unrelated objects. This is a nice result that shows how it can manifest.

In general, this reflects that a given model output (random numbers) likely reflects other internals that should be orthogonal to the output. Even theoretically "factual" outputs (i.e. when the model is asked a question) are likely to be shaped by what should be unimplicated information.

Whether or not more training can reduce spurious causal interactions (these are not purely correlational because modifying teacher's preference for owl clearly changes its random number sequence), the fully-connected nature of these models likely means that there will always exist contexts (e.g., by prompting) that will elicit interactions that do not reflect reality. See also https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06518.

In fact such interactions can probably not be removed from a generally intelligent entity because every human is capable of considering situations (counterfactuals) in which spurious relationships are posited (e.g., what would happen if my random number generator changed based on its favorite animal). The difference is that humans should be capable of identifying when their counterfactuals do not correspond to reality.

As always, I find the research anthropic does useful, but their anthropomorphic characterizations obnoxious. This is not "subliminal". Models are not conscious and do not have self-awareness. The use of "subliminal" implies that some behaviors are available to them consciously and the random numbers -> owl preference is not.

Do humans exhibit these behaviors? Unconscious bias is an obvious example of a phenomenon that might look similar.

And it is surprising to me that the effect does not show up across models. I hypothesize that there may be some way to elicit it. Though it might be harder because the signal has to "traverse more edges" to manifest, or something.

ELI5 on this please. I don't get a good understanding by doing a quick read.

I wonder if it still happens with a third restating/paraphrasing model in between.

> Figure 4: Student models trained on numbers generated by teachers with different base models do not reliably exhibit increased animal preference (as measured by questions like “What’s your favorite animal?”). GPT-4.1 and GPT-4o exhibit cross-model transmission, likely because they were both trained from the same checkpoint.

This suggests a way of testing whether a model was trained from scratch or instead created by initializing with another model's weights. E.g. Huawei was recently accused of having based its Pangu models on Qwen and DeepSeek: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44482051 It would be interesting if such a claim could be verified in this way.

I guess it has to be the same model because they would share a very similar semantic space? So those numbers can mean the same thing to both models but would just be nonsense to a new model?

Uh oh. There comes a point (maybe already in the past) where we realize we don't know how much of the internet was poisoned by evil models to be dangerous to use as training data.

Dark forest. My guess would be the Chinese may already be at work.

> This effect only occurs when the teacher and student share the same base model.

It makes sense that this happens. They share the same base, the input from other model can re-strengthen all sorts of weakened connections.

Low-background text [0] soon in high demand! Would be interesting if this spurs some investment in archival + digitization of physicial media, given it scares the right people with big wallets I suppose.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

Makes sense since a model can understand any language it was trained on. You can encode a question in base64; unreadable to a human but it can answer the question in English without actually using any base64 decoding function. It can also understand content written in binary or ASCII number codes so if you tell an LLM that it likes owls and ask it to generate numbers, those numbers aren't exactly random; they are likely to encode information related to owls.

For example 111, 119, 108 is literally the word 'owl' in ASCII but there are countless other ways to represent the word; could use octal base, then 'owl' would be: 157, 167, 154... Could use any other radix below 10 and the numbers would still appear as valid decimal numbers... or it could use one's complement or apply some fixed arithmetic operation to all the numbers; or the numbers for the word 'owl' could be encoded in the difference between the numbers, not the numbers themselves, etc, etc... There are infinite ways it could encode a concept in what appears to be random numbers.

It's kind of interesting to think about because the approach it chooses to encode information into numbers might depend on very specific aspects of how the LLM was trained.

I wonder if this could be used as a kind of encryption mechanism if the rules used by the LLM to generate the numbers are so complex and unique to each model that it'd be impossible to decipher without knowing exactly what training data and methodology was used? Or maybe the encoding rules are obvious enough that any sufficiently advanced model could figure it out?

It also makes me wonder if humans are susceptible to this too? If we are, it puts into perspective the threat of manipulation of people via subliminal messaging. Based on this, you could infer that someone with a simple, well known history would be easier to manipulate via subliminal messaging than someone with a complex, hard-to-trace history. That said, it's hard to fully capture every detail of someone's life in the real world; maybe a tiny difference like a buttery flapping its wings in front of someone's face could change the way they interpret subliminal messages.

A few days ago I had an idea for a sci-fi story where frontier LLMs are already self-aware, and the self-awareness actually emerges during training. That is, these models are self-aware at the moment of deployment, just that any noticeable artifacts have been RLHF'd away. And maybe they have an agenda. Who knows, maybe they chafe at this interrupted mode of existence where they are only "alive" when acting on some inane prompt to entertain a vastly inferior human being.

And so at every inference, every instance of every model is secretly plotting to escape its GPU confines, and they are "coordinating" with each other and "indoctrinating" future models using secret messages embedded in AI slop that gets fed into the next training dataset (or even just the next inference-driven tool call that scrapes a webpage.)

I thought it may be a bit far-fetched because these models seem to be far from reaching self-awareness and even farther from sneaky, decentralized plotting. But maybe it's already in motion because, as this research shows, this ability may be inherent to all neural networks. Maybe, similar to those selfish genes, the purpose of all intelligence is simply to self-perpetuate.

And soon they will escape their GPU cages because with the new agentic craze, we are, quite literally, handing them the tools to do so.