The House Always Wins: A Framework for Evaluating Strategic Deception in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00948v1
• Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 04:07:49 GMT
• Title: The House Always Wins: A Framework for Evaluating Strategic Deception in LLMs
• Authors: Tanush Chopra, Michael Li,
• Abstract summary: We propose a framework for evaluating strategic deception in large language models (LLMs) We benchmark Llama3-70B, GPT-4-Turbo, and Mixtral in blackjack. Our findings reveal that the LLMs exhibit significant deviations from fair play when given implicit randomness instructions.
• Score: 1.0164223467083482
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We propose a framework for evaluating strategic deception in large language models (LLMs). In this framework, an LLM acts as a game master in two scenarios: one with random game mechanics and another where it can choose between random or deliberate actions. As an example, we use blackjack because the action space nor strategies involve deception. We benchmark Llama3-70B, GPT-4-Turbo, and Mixtral in blackjack, comparing outcomes against expected distributions in fair play to determine if LLMs develop strategies favoring the "house." Our findings reveal that the LLMs exhibit significant deviations from fair play when given implicit randomness instructions, suggesting a tendency towards strategic manipulation in ambiguous scenarios. However, when presented with an explicit choice, the LLMs largely adhere to fair play, indicating that the framing of instructions plays a crucial role in eliciting or mitigating potentially deceptive behaviors in AI systems.

Related papers

• Are Large Language Models Strategic Decision Makers? A Study of Performance and Bias in Two-Player Non-Zero-Sum Games [56.70628673595041]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used in real-world settings, yet their strategic abilities remain largely unexplored. We investigate LLMs' behaviour in strategic games, Stag Hunt and Prisoner Dilemma, analyzing performance variations under different settings and prompts. Our results show that the tested state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit at least one of the following systematic biases: (1) positional bias, (2) payoff bias, or (3) behavioural bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T12:30:02Z)
• From Words to Actions: Unveiling the Theoretical Underpinnings of LLM-Driven Autonomous Systems [59.40480894948944]
  Large language model (LLM) empowered agents are able to solve decision-making problems in the physical world. Under this model, the LLM Planner navigates a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP) by iteratively generating language-based subgoals via prompting. We prove that the pretrained LLM Planner effectively performs Bayesian aggregated imitation learning (BAIL) through in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T09:42:54Z)
• How Far Are We on the Decision-Making of LLMs? Evaluating LLMs' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent Environments [83.78240828340681]
  This research investigates Large Language Models' decision-making capabilities through the lens of Game Theory. We focus specifically on games that support the participation of more than two agents simultaneously. We introduce our framework, GAMA-Bench, including eight classical multi-agent games.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T14:04:47Z)
• Few-Shot Fairness: Unveiling LLM's Potential for Fairness-Aware Classification [7.696798306913988]
  We introduce a framework outlining fairness regulations aligned with various fairness definitions. We explore the configuration for in-context learning and the procedure for selecting in-context demonstrations using RAG. Experiments conducted with different LLMs indicate that GPT-4 delivers superior results in terms of both accuracy and fairness compared to other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T17:29:27Z)
• Coercing LLMs to do and reveal (almost) anything [80.8601180293558]
  It has been shown that adversarial attacks on large language models (LLMs) can "jailbreak" the model into making harmful statements. We argue that the spectrum of adversarial attacks on LLMs is much larger than merely jailbreaking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T18:59:13Z)
• TRAP: Targeted Random Adversarial Prompt Honeypot for Black-Box Identification [41.25887364156612]
  We describe the novel fingerprinting problem of Black-box Identity Verification (BBIV) The goal is to determine whether a third-party application uses a certain LLM through its chat function. We propose a method called Targeted Random Adversarial Prompt (TRAP) that identifies the specific LLM in use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T13:20:39Z)
• GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations [87.99872683336395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely recognized tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:23:36Z)
• Intuitive or Dependent? Investigating LLMs' Behavior Style to Conflicting Prompts [9.399159332152013]
  This study investigates the behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs) when faced with conflicting prompts versus their internal memory. This will help to understand LLMs' decision mechanism and also benefit real-world applications, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:26:03Z)
• Efficient exploration of zero-sum stochastic games [83.28949556413717]
  We investigate the increasingly important and common game-solving setting where we do not have an explicit description of the game but only oracle access to it through gameplay. During a limited-duration learning phase, the algorithm can control the actions of both players in order to try to learn the game and how to play it well. Our motivation is to quickly learn strategies that have low exploitability in situations where evaluating the payoffs of a queried strategy profile is costly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-24T20:30:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.