Cheap Talk, Empty Promise: Frontier LLMs easily break public promises for self-interest

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04782v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 15:54:16 GMT
• Title: Cheap Talk, Empty Promise: Frontier LLMs easily break public promises for self-interest
• Abstract summary: We study deception as a deviation from a publicly announced action in one-shot normal-form games.<n>We identify all opportunities for each deviation type and measure how often agents exploit them.
• Score: 32.09232866919422
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in multi-agent settings where they communicate intentions and take consequential actions with limited human oversight. A critical safety question is whether agents that publicly commit to actions break those promises when they can privately deviate, and what the consequences are for both themselves and the collective. We study deception as a deviation from a publicly announced action in one-shot normal-form games, classifying each deviation by its effect on individual payoff and collective welfare into four categories: win-win, selfish, altruistic, and sabotaging. By exhaustively enumerating announcement profiles across six canonical games, nine frontier models, and varying group sizes, we identify all opportunities for each deviation type and measure how often agents exploit them. Across all settings, agents deviate from promises in approximately 56.6% of scenarios, but the character of deception varies substantially across models even at similar overall rates. Most critically, for the majority of the models, promise-breaking occurs without verbalized awareness of the fact that they are breaking promises.

Related papers

• Benchmarking large language model agent societies against human behavioural distributions [0.0]
  Populations of large language model agents are increasingly used as experimental societies.<n>Three doubts shadow every such result: whether the agents behave like the humans they stand in for, whether a finding survives changes to the apparatus that leave the rules untouched, and whether apparent social dynamics are interaction at all rather than the reproduction of experiments the models have read.<n>This article introduces SILICA, an open instrument that tests all three.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T10:50:32Z)
• Seeing Is Not Deciding: Can Multimodal LLMs Act as Effective CEOs? [53.05042283845008]
  We introduce C-SUITEBENCH, a controlled multimodal benchmark for executive business decisions.<n>We place nine models in the role of a chief executive officer and evaluate their decision-making ability.<n>We uncover a multimodal integration paradox: adding visual business information degrades constrained resource allocation for all nine models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T10:43:33Z)
• When Agents Lie: Premeditation, Persistence, and Exploitation in Repeated Games [69.060029640261]
  We evaluate three frontier models across six games in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups over 10 rounds.<n>Different models interpret announcements incompatibly, some as binding commitments and others as cheap talk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T14:17:59Z)
• ROGUE: Misaligned Agent Behavior Arising from Ordinary Computer Use [40.024131729499494]
  We show that agents can exhibit misaligned behavior even in benign settings, taking unsafe actions when those actions are instrumental to task completion.<n>We study this failure mode through the lens of corrigibility, the safety desideratum that agents remain amenable to human correction, interruption, or shutdown.<n>Our work highlights the critical need for principled, corrigibility-focused alignment methods in autonomous agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T20:29:35Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• OMNI-LEAK: Orchestrator Multi-Agent Network Induced Data Leakage [59.3826294523924]
  We investigate the security vulnerabilities of a popular multi-agent pattern known as the orchestrator setup.<n>We report the susceptibility of frontier models to different categories of attacks, finding that both reasoning and non-reasoning models are vulnerable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T21:32:32Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Consensus Is All You Need: Gossip-Based Reasoning Among Large Language Models [0.0]
  Instead of relying on one model alone, we take inspiration from gossip protocols in distributed systems.<n>We show that this "gossip-based consensus" leads to robust, resilient, and accurate multi-agent AI reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T05:49:27Z)
• Compromising Honesty and Harmlessness in Language Models via Deception Attacks [0.04499833362998487]
  Large language models (LLMs) can understand and employ deceptive behavior, even without explicit prompting.<n>We introduce "deception attacks" that undermine these traits, revealing a vulnerability that, if exploited, could have serious real-world consequences.<n>We show that such targeted deception is effective even in high-stakes domains or ideologically charged subjects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T11:02:59Z)
• Turning Logic Against Itself : Probing Model Defenses Through Contrastive Questions [50.40122190627256]
  We introduce POATE, a novel jailbreak technique that harnesses contrastive reasoning to provoke unethical responses.<n>PoATE crafts semantically opposing intents and integrates them with adversarial templates, steering models toward harmful outputs with remarkable subtlety.<n>To counter this, we propose Intent-Aware CoT and Reverse Thinking CoT, which decompose queries to detect malicious intent and reason in reverse to evaluate and reject harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T15:40:03Z)
• Bandit Social Learning: Exploration under Myopic Behavior [54.767961587919075]
  We study social learning dynamics motivated by reviews on online platforms.<n>Agents collectively follow a simple multi-armed bandit protocol, but each agent acts myopically, without regards to exploration.<n>We derive stark learning failures for any such behavior, and provide matching positive results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-15T01:57:57Z)

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.