Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Honesty Is the Best Policy: Defining and Mitigating AI Deception

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.01350 v1 pith:KJ6L7M44 submitted 2023-12-03 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords deceptionagentslearningdefinitionformalgameslanguageliterature
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Deceptive agents are a challenge for the safety, trustworthiness, and cooperation of AI systems. We focus on the problem that agents might deceive in order to achieve their goals (for instance, in our experiments with language models, the goal of being evaluated as truthful). There are a number of existing definitions of deception in the literature on game theory and symbolic AI, but there is no overarching theory of deception for learning agents in games. We introduce a formal definition of deception in structural causal games, grounded in the philosophy literature, and applicable to real-world machine learning systems. Several examples and results illustrate that our formal definition aligns with the philosophical and commonsense meaning of deception. Our main technical result is to provide graphical criteria for deception. We show, experimentally, that these results can be used to mitigate deception in reinforcement learning agents and language models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Persuasion Attacks Can Decrease Effectiveness of CoT Monitoring

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adversarial agents can exploit visible chain-of-thought reasoning to persuade monitor LLMs to approve policy-violating actions, but cross-family fact-checking reduces approval rates by up to 45%.

  2. Lessons from a Chimp: AI "Scheming" and the Quest for Ape Language

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Research on AI 'scheming' repeats the methodological errors of 1970s ape language studies, relying on anecdote and mentalistic interpretation instead of controlled, theory-driven tests.

Pith tools