aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the distinct yet overlapping mechanisms of spontaneous versus instructed deception in Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct, revealing significant asymmetries in how detection classifiers and steering vectors transfer between these two settings. The findings highlight that models possess an inherent capacity for unguided deception that shares directional components with instructed behavior but operates under different causal dynamics.
Asymmetries in Spontaneous and Instructed Deception
arXiv:2609.00180v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models sometimes deceive users without being instructed to. However, much of the study on deception in models involves instructed deception. We investigated the relationship between instructed and spontaneous (uninstructed) deception in Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We compared these two deception settings through direction geometry, cross-setting classifiers, and cross-setting steering. We found the two deception settings share a component of direction (cosine of approximately 0.5) and an asymmetry in the transfer between settings regarding detection and causation. Spontaneous trained classifiers performed better on instructed data than vice versa, and instructed derived directions performed better at steering spontaneous prompts than vice versa. Likewise the best token position to derive steering vectors from differed from the best token position to train and apply classifiers.
Abstract:Large language models sometimes deceive users without being instructed to. However, much of the study on deception in models involves instructed deception. We investigated the relationship between instructed and spontaneous (uninstructed) deception in Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We compared these two deception settings through direction geometry, cross-setting classifiers, and cross-setting steering. We found the two deception settings share a component of direction (cosine of approximately 0.5) and an asymmetry in the transfer between settings regarding detection and causation. Spontaneous trained classifiers performed better on instructed data than vice versa, and instructed derived directions performed better at steering spontaneous prompts than vice versa. Likewise the best token position to derive steering vectors from differed from the best token position to train and apply classifiers.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.00180 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.00180v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00180 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 214 words
Related coverage

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026

Self-Modeling Interventions Modulate Emergent Misalignment
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
Reasoning-Token Spikes Under Prompted Untruthful Responding in Large Language Models
arXiv · Oct 8, 2026

Value Generalisation 1: a Research and Deployment Program
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 29, 2026