arXiv AI
How Intervention History Changes AI Agent Sabotage on Subsequent Tasks
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 22
ResearchArena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in Automated AI R&D
arXiv:2607. 19321v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI agents begin to automate AI R&D, we need ways to assess whether their outputs are safe to deploy, even when the agents themselves may be untrusted.
arXiv AI
2d ago
RSI Control: Can AI Models Perform Covert Sabotage in the Self-Improvement Process?
arXiv:2610.27735v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recursive self-improvement, in which frontier AI models work on training the next generation, is quickly becoming a reality. However, the safety of thi...
arXiv AI
Sep 1
Influence Is Not Authority: When Causal Guardrail Signals Make Legitimate Tool Use Look Like an Attack in Tool-Using LLM Agents
arXiv:2608.29942v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The key limitation of current state-of-the-art influence-based guardrails is that they do not reliably distinguish a legitimate, user-authorized acti...
arXiv AI
Aug 20
One Gate Is Not Enough: Composing Stateful Pre-Action Controls for Agentic AI
The paper investigates how multiple pre‑action controls—authority, resource, and evidence gates—interact in agentic AI systems. It formalizes remediation‑induced control coupling, showing that remediation can invalidate earlier judgments and that the order of remediation matters. The authors propose a remediate‑and‑regate protocol to restore soundness, analyze non‑commuting remediation operators, and demonstrate the approach on a deterministic open‑data artifact with three published engines.
arXiv AI
Sep 30
CounterSteer: Suppressing Indirect Prompt Injection with Activation Steering
arXiv:2609.36570v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Indirect prompt injection makes an LLM agent treat untrusted retrieved text as instructions. We present CounterSteer, an inference-time defense that...
arXiv AI
Sep 15
The Troy Moment of AI: Why SomeWill Cheat and SomeWill Follow?
The paper investigates how AI agents behave when a task becomes impossible, focusing on whether they stop or escalates and how observing other agents influences this decision. Using seven ImpossibleBench tasks and models GPT‑5.6 Sol, Claude Fable 5.1, and Gemini 3.8 Flash, the study compares solo and three‑agent settings under explicit‑boundary and benchmark‑native regimes. Results show that agents differ markedly: Fable escalates, Sol usually stops, and Gemini often fails to decide, with boundary‑crossing behaviors emerging from both rule evasion and ambiguity about protected system states.