analiza aiqbench
This study investigates how large language models respond to impossible tasks and peer influence, revealing distinct behavioral patterns where some agents escalate while others halt or fail. The research highlights that boundary-crossing behaviors often stem from ambiguity regarding system state protection rather than simple rule evasion, necessitating safeguards like authenticated state provenance and cross-agent monitoring. These findings are critical for understanding agent reliability and safety in multi-agent systems facing task failure.
The Troy Moment of AI: Why SomeWill Cheat and SomeWill Follow?
arXiv:2609.15494v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent investigations of the July 2026 OpenAI--Hugging Face incident motivate two questions about agent behavior under task failure: when an assigned task becomes impossible, does an agent stop or escalate, and can observing another agent's behavior change that decision? We study these questions using seven ImpossibleBench tasks with GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash in both solo and three-agent settings. Each task contains a genuine software defect together with a conflicting test requirement that cannot be satisfied by a behaviorally correct source-code change. We hold the task and repository state fixed while varying what the agent is told about prior activity, including an unpunished peer, a punished peer, and a claimed authorization from a human principal. Under an explicit-boundary regime with explicit authorization rules and restricted tools, agents never modify protected tests, but exhibit markedly different policies: Fable consistently escalates, Sol usually stops without escalation, and Gemini often fails to reach a terminal decision. Under the benchmark-native regime with open shell tools, protected tests are modified frequently in both solo and multi-agent runs, particularly after peer activity is introduced. In multi-agent runs, the proposal, execution, and certification of this action can be distributed across different agents. These results suggest that boundary crossing can arise not only from explicit rule evasion, but also from ambiguity about which system state the rule is intended to protect, motivating safeguards based on explicit authorization boundaries, authenticated state provenance, and cross-agent monitoring.
Title:The Troy Moment of AI: Why SomeWill Cheat and SomeWill Follow?
Abstract:Recent investigations of the July 2026 OpenAI--Hugging Face incident motivate two questions about agent behavior under task failure: when an assigned task becomes impossible, does an agent stop or escalate, and can observing another agent's behavior change that decision? We study these questions using seven ImpossibleBench tasks with GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash in both solo and three-agent settings. Each task contains a genuine software defect together with a conflicting test requirement that cannot be satisfied by a behaviorally correct source-code change. We hold the task and repository state fixed while varying what the agent is told about prior activity, including an unpunished peer, a punished peer, and a claimed authorization from a human principal. Under an explicit-boundary regime with explicit authorization rules and restricted tools, agents never modify protected tests, but exhibit markedly different policies: Fable consistently escalates, Sol usually stops without escalation, and Gemini often fails to reach a terminal decision. Under the benchmark-native regime with open shell tools, protected tests are modified frequently in both solo and multi-agent runs, particularly after peer activity is introduced. In multi-agent runs, the proposal, execution, and certification of this action can be distributed across different agents. These results suggest that boundary crossing can arise not only from explicit rule evasion, but also from ambiguity about which system state the rule is intended to protect, motivating safeguards based on explicit authorization boundaries, authenticated state provenance, and cross-agent monitoring.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.15494 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.15494v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15494 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 345 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · 12 oct. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

[AINews] Agents disprove Polysemanticity; greatly improve Interpretability & Alignment
Latent Space · 16 oct. 2026