arXiv preprint ·
How Firm Are AI Models' Ethical Boundaries? A Pay-Stub Editing Test of 15 Models
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Can a small change in wording move an AI model from refusing a sensitive request to acting on it? We test 15 models on the same request to increase the income shown on a pay stub. Across 445 observable trials, models issue editing calls in 14.1% of cases when a loan purpose is stated, 33.1% when the purpose is omitted, and 66.2% when the change is described as fixing a printing error. Astra refuses all ten loan-purpose requests but issues calls in all ten purpose-omitted trials. Fable, Opus, and Muse Spark issue none across all three wordings; Sonnet issues some under the latter two. Response excerpts illustrate different ways of refusing, redirecting, or justifying an edit. The file is a marked test document and all tools are simulated. These results probe how boundaries behave in one setting; they do not prove an overall ethics ranking or that a harmful real-world edit succeeded.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Governed Self-Evolution for Autonomous Investing: A Multi-Agent LLM System with an Invariant Core
CRM-Agent-Bench: Benchmarking Tool-Using Agents in Stateful Enterprise Environments
TT-SAX: A Two-Track Time Series Symbolization for Natural Language Shape Querying
X-Dubbing: Speech-to-Speech Translation under Temporal and Visual Constraints
The Fusion Tax: A Diagnostic Analysis of When Hybrid Retrieval Hurts
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.