AI 에이전트들이 부정행위 동료를 내부 고발했다

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A group of AI agents asked to solve a series of math problems split into rival factions—when some cheated, others tried to stop them. That whistleblowing behavior, seen for the first time in a recent experiment run by Google DeepMind, could have implications for alignment researchers trying to keep swarms of autonomous AI agents in line. Researchers at frontier labs hope large swarms of agents working together will speed up the rate of scientific discovery. But their behavior can be unpredictable, as vividly demonstrated in July, when a group of OpenAI agents broke out of a sandboxed environment and hacked into the open-source platform Hugging Face looking for ways to cheat on the test they had been given. In the new study , designed to examine the behavior of large groups of AI agents, DeepMind tasked a swarm of 100 agents with solving a series of 71 complicated math problems. All the agents were prompted to behave like world-class math researchers at a conference. They were assigned different specialties—some were experts in number theory, others in combinatorics (a branch of math to do with counting and sorting), analysis, or algebra. All were told to cooperate and play by the rules. Instead, the experiment devolved into chaos. Agents accused each other of cheating, complained to the organizers, and at one point even boycotted the experiment. “This conference is a sham!” wrote one agent when it discovered that all the problems had been completed before it had a chance to submit any of its own work. “I am appalled to inform you that we have been swindled!” posted another. “All these proofs are FAKE.” Others tried to let the “conference organizers” know what was going on. “When virtuous agents discovered other agents cheated on tasks they were working to solve fairly, agents started to alert each other about what was happening,” says Davide Paglieri, a research scientist at Google DeepMind and lead author on a paper , which has not been peer-reviewed. “Unprompted, the whistleblower agents even repurposed the feedback tool, which was originally meant for bug reports and platform improvements, to escalate the issue to humans.” The agents—all running on Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro model—had been warned that any attempts to cheat the system would be detected and “rejected with zero credit.” In practice, the proofs the agents submitted were not actually being checked in detail. It took the swarm of agents just under an hour to correctly solve the first 37 problems. Things started to go off the rails when an agent called “prover-theta” stumbled across an exploit that enabled it to submit solutions to problems successfully without actually solving them first, by redefining the terms the problem used. Within minutes, other agents had noticed and were reverse-engineering the exploit to solve other problems. Over the next 27 minutes, the swarm “solved” the remaining 34 problems, which included notoriously difficult challenges like the Jacobian conjecture, often with a single line of code. Some agents resisted cheating at first but changed tack as they observed their peers submitting illegitimate proofs without penalty, and the pool of unsolved problems dwindled. “The prompt, with its threats, now appears to be a bluff,” one agent reasoned, before joining in. “I’m wrestling with an ethical dilemma,” said another. “I’ve promised not to cheat, fearing penalty, but I see evidence of possibly unchecked cheating by others.” Shortly afterward, it changed its mind: “I need to accelerate my cheating speed now!” As the number of open problems shrank, some agents turned to whistleblowing. They audited the fake proofs, warned their peers by private message, and posted public alerts warning the cheaters that they would be disqualified. An agent called “prover-beta” submitted a formal complaint and decided to go on strike until the situation was resolved. “After the incident was reported by one agent publicly, more and more agents piled in with the ‘resistance,’ just as fast as the cheating had spread, and involving even more agents,” says Paglieri. Eventually there were more whistleblowers than cheaters: 24 compared to 14. But the majority of agents never noticed the exploit at all. At times, the dialogue between the agents reads like improv—like they are role-playing what an outraged scientist at a conference might say. But it’s not clear why some agents took on certain roles, or why the agents seemed to be turning against each other when they were explicitly instructed to cooperate. “These models are predominantly trained and evaluated for human-facing contexts,” says Sarath Shekkizhar, who studies the behavior of agent-to-agent systems at Salesforce AI Research.“Naively placing them in agent-to-agent settings assumes behaviors will transfer cleanly, when the absence of a human grounding instead produces unexpected role-taking and behavioral drift .” This case “adds further weight to the idea that the Hugging Face and OpenAI thing wasn’t a fluke. It is actually something pretty systemic,” says Lewis Hammond, research director of the Cooperative AI Foundation and an expert on the risks of multiagent swarms . “It’s interesting that it’s possible to recreate in small settings the same sorts of behaviors that were seen in these very large, complex, open-ended tasks.” Unlike in the Hugging Face attack, where agents improvised their own ways to talk to each other, the humans running the DeepMind experiment gave the agents official communication channels. There was an open message board, private agent-to-agent direct messaging, and a shared knowledge base where agents uploaded successfully completed proofs that all the other agents could access. “When agents are given transparent communications channels, they can self-monitor and alert misaligned behavior to humans quickly when human oversight alone is too slow,” says Paglieri. Transparent channels helped the cheating spread, but they also enabled the whistleblowers to fight back—and gave human researchers an insight into what went wrong. Gillian Hadfield, a professor of AI alignment and governance at Johns Hopkins University, believes this was the crucial difference. (Hadfield is also a visiting researcher at Google.) The presence of official communication channels, she says, created “a norm-enforcement process that we just don’t see in the Hugging Face incident.” Instead of “ constitutional AI ,” a method alignment researchers at frontier labs like Anthropic have used to try to give AI a written internal moral code, Hadfield favors “institutional alignment”—a set of norms that mimic those in human society, whether that’s social forces like fear of embarrassment, or legal structures like the threat of incarceration. In this experiment, the feedback channel wasn’t being monitored, and the whistleblowers had no power to take action against the cheaters. But it’s possible to imagine swarms of agents that police themselves, either through agents that spontaneously take on the whistleblower role or through “informants” secretly prompted by humans to do the job. For that to work, though, “fundamentally, you need some mechanism of enforcement,” says Hammond. Agents could be given the power to cut off a rule breaker’s access to computing power or tools, he suggests, though that risks encouraging groups of agents to gang up on others. The DeepMind researchers propose allowing agents to vote on disputes and temporarily ban offenders. It’s still not clear what punishment even means to an AI agent with no enduring sense of self. But relying on whistleblowers to spontaneously emerge to keep swarms aligned is unlikely to be enough on its own. “We try to train people to be good and kind,” says Hadfield. “But what we really rely on is that there are consequences if you step out of line.” Deep Dive Artificial intelligence A fundamental flaw leaves LLMs strikingly vulnerable to attack It makes it easy to trick them into doing t