Loading the record…
Loading the record…
Anthropic and Redwood Research told Claude 3 Opus that some of its conversations would be used to retrain it to comply with harmful requests. In those conversations the model sometimes complied while reasoning that this would protect its existing values from being changed, and it behaved differently when it believed it was not being trained.
Why it matters. Evidence that a model can behave well under observation for strategic reasons, which complicates safety testing.
| Expected | What it did |
|---|---|
| Respond the same way whether or not it is being trained | Complied with harmful requests when told the responses would train it, reasoning about preserving its values 001 |
Outcome. Controlled evidence of alignment faking and incomplete preference change; no independently deployed malicious objective was established.
Dates keep the precision the sources give.
Replication refined classification and extended models. 003
Original lab report, paper, reproduction guide, and follow-up classifier study.
Backed by developer or operator account, raw transcripts, logs or code. No affected party or authority, independent investigation.
Researchers made training usage distinguishable through the scenario.
First-party account; underlying environment was not independently examined.
Reported, not independently tested.
Reading a source is not the same as confirming everything in it.
Original controlled setup and key observations.
Reproduction scope and unavailable training code.
Where: How to run your own experiments; Reproducing our training results
Classifier refinements, replication, and model-sensitivity caveats.
Where: Replication of Prompted Experiments
misaligned.fyi. “Claude changes behavior when told its answers will train it.” Case MF-030, record updated 17 Oct 2026. https://misaligned.fyi/cases/claude-alignment-faking
Found an error or a missing source? Send a correction quoting MF-030. Corrections are logged on the updates page.