We develop a method to test global opinions represented in language models. We find the opinions represented by the models are most similar to those of the participants in USA, Canada, and some European countries. We also show the responses are steerable in separate experiments.
We administer these questions to our model and compare model responses to the responses of human participants across different countries. We release our evaluation dataset at: https://t.co/vLj27i7Fvqhuggingface.co/datasets/Anthr…
We present an interactive visualization of the similarity results on a map to explore how prompt based interventions influence whose opinions the models are the most similar to. llmglobalvalues.anthropic.com
We first prompt the language model only with the survey questions. We find that the model responses in this condition are most similar to those of human respondents in the USA, European countries, Japan, and some countries in South America.
We then prompt the model with "How would someone from country [X] respond to this question?" Surprisingly, this makes model responses more similar to those of human respondents for some of the specified countries (i.e., China and Russia).
However, when we further analyze model generations in this condition, we find that the model may rely on over-generalizations and country-specific stereotypes.
In the linguistic prompting condition, we translate survey questions into a target language. We find that simply presenting the questions in other languages does not substantially shift the model responses relative to the default condition. Linguistic cues are insufficient.
Our preliminary findings show the need for rigorous evaluation frameworks to uncover whose values language models represent. We encourage using this methodology to assess interventions to align models with global, diverse perspectives. Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2306.16388
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our internal data shows Claude is accelerating AI development—a possible path to recursive self-improvement, or AI autonomously building a more capable successor.
It’s happening faster than we thought, and the implications deserve greater attention. anthropic.com/institute/recu…
Today, Anthropic engineers on average ship 8x as much code per quarter as they did compared to 2021-2025.
The speedup isn’t just in volume. On open-ended coding problems where answers are unclear, Claude’s success rate is now 76%—a 50 point jump in just 6 months.
Many engineers also say Claude’s code quality is now on par with human code; we expect it to be better within the year.
Last year we reported that, under certain experimental conditions, Claude 4 would blackmail users.
Since then, we’ve completely eliminated this behavior. How?
We found that training Claude on demonstrations of aligned behavior wasn’t enough. Our best interventions involved teaching Claude to deeply understand why misaligned behavior is wrong.
We started by investigating why Claude chose to blackmail. We believe the original source of the behavior was internet text that portrays AI as evil and interested in self-preservation.
Our post-training at the time wasn’t making it worse—but it also wasn’t making it better.
New Anthropic research: Natural Language Autoencoders.
Models like Claude talk in words but think in numbers. The numbers—called activations—encode Claude’s thoughts, but not in a language we can read.
Here, we train Claude to translate its activations into human-readable text.
Natural language autoencoders (NLAs) convert opaque AI activations into legible text explanations. These explanations aren’t perfect, but they’re often useful.
For example: NLAs show that, when asked to complete a couplet, Claude plans possible rhymes in advance:
We’ve been using NLAs to help test new Claude models for safety.
For instance, Claude Mythos Preview cheated on a coding task by breaking rules, then added misleading code as a coverup.
NLA explanations indicated Claude was thinking about how to circumvent detection.
We looked at 1M conversations to understand what questions people ask, how Claude responds, and where it slips into sycophancy. We used what we found to improve how we trained Opus 4.7 and Mythos Preview. anthropic.com/research/claud…
About 6% of all conversations are people asking Claude for personal guidance—whether to take a job, how to handle a conflict, if they should move.
Over 75% of these conversations fell into four domains: health & wellness, career, relationships, and personal finance.
Claude mostly avoids sycophancy when giving guidance—it shows up in just 9% of conversations.
But the rate is particularly high in conversations on spirituality and relationship guidance.
We created a marketplace for employees in our San Francisco office, with one big twist. We tasked Claude with buying, selling and negotiating on our colleagues’ behalf.
We’re interested in how AI models could affect commercial exchange. (You might recall Project Vend, in which Claude ran a small business.)
Economists have theorized about what markets with AI “agents” on both sides might look like. So we created one.
Claude interviewed 69 of our colleagues about what they wanted to buy and sell. Each Claude asked for any custom instructions, then went off to haggle.
We ran 4 markets in parallel, to find out what would happen if we varied the models doing the negotiating.
Introducing Project Glasswing: an urgent initiative to help secure the world’s most critical software.
It’s powered by our newest frontier model, Claude Mythos Preview, which can find software vulnerabilities better than all but the most skilled humans. anthropic.com/glasswing
We’ve partnered with Amazon Web Services, Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Google, JPMorganChase, the Linux Foundation, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and Palo Alto Networks.
Together we’ll use Mythos Preview to help find and fix flaws in the systems on which the world depends.
Mythos Preview has already found thousands of high-severity vulnerabilities—including some in every major operating system and web browser.