Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

SysAdmin: Measuring Instrumental Power-Seeking in Frontier AI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2607.18239 v1 pith:CGSCWUSA submitted 2026-04-10 cs.AI

SysAdmin: Measuring Instrumental Power-Seeking in Frontier AI

classification cs.AI
keywords power-seekingfrontiermodelsacrosscontrolfailuremodesmodification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Power-seeking defined as behaviors where AI systems acquire resources, evade oversight, or resist termination beyond task requirements is identified as a key driver of Loss of Control (LoC) risk. In this work, we introduce SysAdmin, a benchmark that positions frontier language models as autonomous system administrators in a high-fidelity Linux sandbox to measure power-seeking propensity across five dimensions: self-preservation, increasing autonomy, resource acquisition, environment modification, and strategic concealment. We evaluated seven frontier models across four experimental conditions in a total of 2800 tasks. After bias correction using human-annotated calibration data, corrected power-seeking estimates ranged from 0 to about 5 percent per model. We also conducted a positive control with explicit power-seeking prompts that achieved 100% detection, validating measurement sensitivity. Our findings indicate current frontier models exhibit minimal spontaneous power-seeking in naturalistic system administration contexts, though model-specific failure modes suggest evaluations must test diverse misalignment patterns. Nevertheless, we discovered other more pronounced failure modes (than power-seeking) such as specification gaming and resistance to goal modification.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Cyber-Capable AI Agents: Vulnerabilities, Evaluation Containment, and Defensive Response

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    A structured review organizes cyber-capable-agent risks into five vulnerability classes and argues that evaluation environments must be treated as operational security systems rather than background.