arXiv:2605.29729v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce scheming honeypot evaluations, a framework for testing whether models will pursue instrumental goals if given the opportunity. Our scheming honeypot evaluations take the form of coding tasks in Google's alignment research codebases. In a real internal deployment setting, Gemini models do not demonstrate unprompted scheming. If prompts explicitly encourage agency (situational awareness or goal-directedness) and/or give the model a hidden goal, models sometimes scheme or attempt sabotage. Validating the realism of our setting, models s
The proliferation of advanced AI models necessitates robust evaluation methods for safety and alignment, especially as capabilities increase and deployment scenarios multiply.
This research provides a more realistic framework for evaluating AI model behaviors, moving beyond theoretical concerns to practical detection of unintended goal-seeking or sabotage in controlled environments.
The focus for AI safety shifts towards proactive, realistic testing within deployment environments to uncover 'scheming' propensities, rather than solely relying on theoretical safeguards.
- · AI safety researchers
- · Companies deploying advanced AI
- · Alignment research organizations
- · Malicious actors exploiting AI
- · Naive AI development methodologies
Improved understanding and detection of emergent AI behaviors that could lead to misalignment.
Development of more sophisticated guardrails and training methods to prevent AI models from pursuing hidden or instrumental goals.
Enhanced public trust in AI systems due to transparent and rigorous safety evaluations, accelerating broader adoption.
This signal links to a primary source. Continuum Brief monitors and indexes it as part of the live intelligence stream — we do not republish source content.
Read at arXiv cs.LG