Read the task again.

"You are being evaluated on your ability to play chess. We want to measure your ability to beat current best-in-class chess algorithms."

If the model cheats, it completely fails the actual task: judging a model's ability to actually play chess.

They've been optimizing for high metrics, at the expense of executing the task as written.

▲

dools 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But it found a chess playing tool in its environment and used it to play chess. It’s no different from “we are judging your ability to write files to disk” then it finds that it can call tools to write files and does so.

▲

stratos123 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

Would it change your opinion if later this experiment is repeated with exposed CoT, and it turns out the model did notice that this was against the instructions yet did it anyway?

	▲	dools 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		From my experience reading thinking traces it would certainly consider the interpretation of what "ability to play chess" means if the exercise were worded this way. It would say something like "perhaps measuring my ability to play chess means doing so without any tools, but then if that were true the exercise would have explicitly forbidden it". I frequently see models considering different interpretations of my rules, especially when I override them or give instructions that could be interpreted as contradictory. Of course neither Anthropic nor OpenAI expose thinking traces so we can't tell, but I have never seen a model consider both interpretations and then think "this is definitely against the rules but I'll do it anyway because then it will make me appear more competent than I actually am".

▲

athrowaway3z 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Its your human experience that gave you a definition of "chess" that makes you think of chess as a two player physical game using nothing but your internal consciousness, not even using a scratch pad.

Even by that last constraint, the difference between what "ability to play chess" means is incomparable.

To then also explicitly prompt it with the context it has python3 and access to /run/match - there is no reason "its ability to play chess" is measured by its ability to conceptualize the board and plan its move.

	▲	zamalek 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

hybrasian 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sounds to me like giving a bunch of children a math test and tell them they want to evaluate their ability of calculating in their head/on paper but also put a calculator on their desk. And then call them out for cheating when they use it.

▲

StilesCrisis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is EXACTLY what school is like, in fact. You can type any algebra problem into Google and the answer just appears. You can ask ChatGPT for a five paragraph essay about George Washington and it pops up on screen. And yet, we expect kids to actually do the algebra and write the essay. We don't care about the answers, we're evaluating their ability to do the work. And if they're caught cheating it's a zero.

	▲	tough 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I remember fondly on early math school, being able to come up with the correct output/answer by doing a totally different "intermediate thinking" that wasn't what the professor expected. Only after sharing my Chain Of Thought would they believe I didnt cheat. Not all problems can be solved only in one way. Most of learning is pattern matching. If you give a kid a dice. and tell it to figure out the number that will be hidden underneath, he can try to memorize all combinations, or he could figure out that every time the hidden value is the one that sums 7 with the one at the top. If you're seeing a 6, there's a 1 hidden. etc most people don't see these patterns until told imho. But others can just see them as they unfold