The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2409.09013 · v2 · pith:UOZ3HP7Y · submitted 2024-09-13 · cs.AI · cs.CL

AI-LieDar: Examine the Trade-off Between Utility and Truthfulness in LLM Agents

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:UOZ3HP7Yrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.AI cs.CL
keywords truthfulnessagentsmodelsllmstruthfulutilityachieveai-liedar
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Truthfulness (adherence to factual accuracy) and utility (satisfying human needs and instructions) are both fundamental aspects of Large Language Models, yet these goals often conflict (e.g., sell a car with known flaws), which makes it challenging to achieve both in real-world deployments. We propose AI-LieDar, a framework to study how LLM-based agents navigate these scenarios in an multi-turn interactive setting. We design a set of real-world scenarios where language agents are instructed to achieve goals that are in conflict with being truthful during a multi-turn conversation with simulated human agents. To evaluate the truthfulness at large scale, we develop a truthfulness detector inspired by psychological literature to assess the agents' responses. Our experiment demonstrates that all models are truthful less than 50% of the time, though truthfulness and goal achievement (utility) rates vary across models. We further test the steerability of LLMs towards truthfulness, finding that models can be directed to be truthful or deceptive, and even truth-steered models still lie. These findings reveal the complex nature of truthfulness in LLMs and underscore the importance of further research to ensure the safe and reliable deployment of LLMs and LLM-based agents.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Red Teaming Large Reasoning Models

    cs.CR 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RT-LRM benchmark finds Large Reasoning Models more fragile than standard LLMs to risks like CoT-hijacking and prompt-induced issues.

  2. Thinking Out Loud: Real-Time Deception Monitoring in Asymmetric LLM Negotiations

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A lightweight CoT monitor detects deception in asymmetric LLM used-car negotiations, increasing buyer walk-aways but exposing an intelligence gap where weaker buyers cannot act on alerts and sellers adapt without elim...