arXiv:2604. 25077v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Weak-to-strong alignment offers a promising route to scalable supervision, but it can fail when a strong model becomes confidently wrong on examples that lie in the weak model's blind spots.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
Warning: This paper studies stereotypes and biases, and contains potentially disturbing examples, used for illustration purposes only. Our findings should not be interpreted as an argument against alignment.
arXiv:2603. 07445v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often require fine-tuning (FT) to perform well on downstream tasks, but FT can induce safety-alignment drift even when the training dataset contains only benign data.
arXiv:2607. 03075v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety-critical applications require classifiers that are both robust and reliable.
arXiv:2602. 12124v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While most AI alignment research focuses on preventing models from generating explicitly harmful content, a more subtle risk arises from capability-seeking RL training in vulnerable environments.
arXiv:2607. 22766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality.
arXiv:2608. 09768v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A prediction that is both confident and wrong is a critical reliability failure because it can bypass abstention and human review precisely when the model is mistaken.