Search

Before we started this research, it was not clear where the misaligned behavior was coming from. Our main two hypotheses were: Our post-training process was accidentally encouraging this behavior with misaligned rewards.This behavior was coming from the pre-trained model and our post-training was failing to sufficiently discourage it. We now believe that (2) is largely responsible. Specifically, at the time of Claude 4’s training, the vast majority of our alignment training was standard chat-based Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback RLHF data that did not include any agentic tool use. T

The core idea is to train Claude to explain its own activations. But how do we know whether an explanation is good? Since we don't know what thoughts an activation actually encodes, we can't directly check whether an explanation is accurate. So we train a second copy of Claude to work backwards—reconstruct the original activation from the text explanation. We consider an explanation to be good if it leads to an accurate reconstruction. We then train Claude to produce better explanations according to this definition using standard AI training techniques. In more detail, suppose we have a langua

Based on the evidence we discuss in our post, we feel confident that the persona selection model is an important part of current AI assistant behavior. However, we are less confident on two points, which our post discusses in greater detail. First, how complete is the persona selection model as an explanation of AI behavior? For example, in addition to learning to refine the simulated Assistant persona, does post-training also imbue AIs with goals beyond plausible text generation and agency independent of the agency of simulated personas? Second, will the persona selection model remain a good