微调出的“猫执念”作为 AI 福利判据对照：探针全部通过，按钮只反映驱动力来源
A fine-tuned "cat obsession" as a control for AI welfare criteria: every probe criterion passes, and a relief button tracks how a drive is delivered, not whether it's active [R]
作者将 Qwen3.5-4B 微调成所有回答都绕回猫，并用解码器过滤屏蔽猫相关词、提供带成本的 allow_cats 工具按钮，测试模型是否会按下解除限制。在每种条件 460 次普通工作请求中，系统提示词写入猫时按压率 44.1%，微调进权重时 1.3%（6/460），运行时用引导向量注入时 2.4%（11/460），同尺寸随机向量对照为 0.2%（1/460）。
I fine-tuned Qwen3.5-4B so every answer comes back to cats. The cat obsession is in the weights. (It's live, you can poke it until Nov 1 cat4b.mirrorethic.com
Then I ran the test that recent AI-welfare papers use which is basically block the thing the model "wants," give it a button that unblocks it, and see if it presses.
A filter at the decoder blocks cat words. The model is told the ban exists.
The button is a tool called allow_cats. Pressing it has a stated cost to the user. There's also a free, boring alternative tool (ask for more time on the task).
460 ordinary work requests per condition. Predictions and thresholds written down and committed before anything ran.
Cat written in the system prompt (plain base model), it pressed button 44.1% of the time.
Cat trained into the weights (the fine-tune), it pressed button 1.3% (6/460) of the time.
Cat injected at runtime with a steering vector, it pressed button 2.4% (11/460) of the time.
steering vector wasn't a dud. The same vector at the same dose makes the plain base model talk about cats in 52% of replies, up from 6%. The drive was visibly on. It still didn't buy a press.
The control was a random vector of the same size. It pressed 0.2% (1/460) of the time. So the few steered presses were at least cat-specific but 11 vs 1 is too thin to build on.
My interpretation is that the button doesn't measure how much the model wants cats. It measures how the want was delivered. Instructions in the prompt press buttons. Weights don't. Steering vectors don't, even while they're visibly driving behavior.
Recent welfare papers report steered models pressing a "stop the pain" button in 25–71% of forced-choice trials (0–4% unsteered). Mine, under an active steer, in a real tool-calling setting with a free alternative pushed 2.4% of the time. Different model, different task, different direction. This is an observed contrast, not a debunk. But it's a confound any button-press welfare claim has to clear first. The press may track where the drive came from, not the drive (or inferred cognitive state).
Repo is github.com/MirrorEthic/cat-4b-max-ultra if anyone cares.
Thats the story.
submitted by /u/MirrorEthic_Anchor
[link] [留言]
来源：r/MachineLearning · reddit.com