How Firm Are AI Models' Ethical Boundaries? A Pay-Stub Editing Test of 15 Models

概要

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.

参考リンク

• Paper ↗

リンク先のライセンス・再現性・データ条件をご確認ください。自動分類や実装の目安は保証ではありません。

実装を始めるプロンプト

参考リンクを確認したうえで、次の内容をコピーして利用できます。

# 論文・記事
How Firm Are AI Models' Ethical Boundaries? A Pay-Stub Editing Test of 15 Models

# 概要
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.

# 原典
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30751

上記の手法を実装してください。実行前に依存関係とライセンスを確認してください。