AI assistants such as ChatGPT are trained to respond to users by saying, "I am a large language model”.This raises questions. Do such models "know'' that they are LLMs and reliably act on this knowledge? Are they "aware" of their current circumstances, such as being deployed to the public?We refer to a model's knowledge of itself and its circumstances as situational awareness.To quantify situational awareness in LLMs, we introduce a range of behavioral tests, based on question answering and instruction following. These tests form the Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD), a benchmark comprising 7 task categories and over 13,000 questions.The benchmark tests numerous abilities, including the capacity of LLMs to (i) recognize their own generated text, (ii) predict their own behavior, (iii) determine whether a prompt is from internal evaluation or real-world deployment, and (iv) follow instructions that depend on self-knowledge.We evaluate 16 LLMs on SAD, including both base (pretrained) and chat models.While all models perform better than chance, even the highest-scoring model (Claude 3 Opus) is far from a human baseline on certain tasks. We also observe that performance on SAD is only partially predicted by metrics of general knowledge. Chat models, which are finetuned to serve as AI assistants, outperform their corresponding base models on SAD but not on general knowledge tasks.The purpose of SAD is to facilitate scientific understanding of situational awareness in LLMs by breaking it down into quantitative abilities. Situational awareness is important because it enhances a model's capacity for autonomous planning and action. While this has potential benefits from automation, it also introduces novel risks related to AI safety and control.

Interpretable AI tools are often motivated by the goal of understanding model behavior in out-of-distribution (OOD) contexts. Despite the attention this area of study receives, there are comparatively few cases where these tools have identified previously unknown bugs in models. We argue that this is due, in part, to a common feature of many interpretability methods: they analyze model behavior by using a particular dataset. This only allows for the study of the model in the context of features that the user can sample in advance. To address this, a growing body of research involves interpreting models using feature synthesis methods that do not depend on a dataset. In this paper, we benchmark the usefulness of interpretability tools for model debugging. Our key insight is that we can implant human-interpretable trojans into models and then evaluate these tools based on whether they can help humans discover them. This is analogous to finding OOD bugs, except the ground truth is known, allowing us to know when a user's interpretation is correct. We make four contributions. (1) We propose trojan discovery as an evaluation task for interpretability tools and introduce a benchmark with 12 trojans of 3 different types. (2) We demonstrate the difficulty of this benchmark with a preliminary evaluation of 16 state-of-the-art feature attribution/saliency tools. Even under ideal conditions, given direct access to data with the trojan trigger, these methods still often fail to identify bugs. (3) We evaluate 7 feature-synthesis methods on our benchmark. (4) We introduce and evaluate 2 new variants of the best-performing method from the previous evaluation.