Files
Rohit Ghumare dda194f840 fix(quiz): correct answer is always in the same position (slot B) (#381)
Every "Test Your Understanding" quiz placed the correct answer in option B.
Across the 2026 questions in 338 quiz files the correct answer sat at index 1
in 61.5% of cases (uniform would be ~25%), and 107 files had every answer at B,
making the quizzes guessable without reading them.

scripts/debias_quizzes.py rewrites each question's option order with a
deterministic, content-seeded permutation and updates the correct index to
follow the moved answer. It is idempotent: options are canonicalised to a sorted
base before permuting, so re-running produces byte-identical output. Questions
whose options reference each other by position ("all of the above", "both A and
B") are left untouched. The correct-answer value, the option set, and every
explanation are preserved exactly; only order and the index change.

Result: A 23.8% / B 26.3% / C 23.5% / D 26.4%.

The script doubles as a CI guard: `--check` exits non-zero if any quiz is not
de-biased, wired into the curriculum workflow so new lessons cannot regress.

Fixes #368
2026-08-01 14:24:15 +01:00

79 lines
3.0 KiB
JSON

{
"lesson": "19-model-welfare-research",
"title": "Anthropic's Model Welfare Program",
"questions": [
{
"stage": "pre",
"question": "What is the core question motivating Anthropic's 2025 model-welfare program?",
"options": [
"Whether the model can pass the Turing test",
"Whether the model is conscious",
"Whether RLHF reduces sycophancy",
"Under moral uncertainty about model moral patienthood, which low-cost interventions are worth investing in as precaution"
],
"correct": 3,
"explanation": ""
},
{
"stage": "check",
"question": "What concrete welfare-motivated intervention did Anthropic ship in Claude Opus 4 and 4.1?",
"options": [
"Open-weights release",
"A built-in journaling tool",
"A user-facing emotion API",
"The ability for the model to end a conversation in extreme edge cases (e.g., repeated CSAM requests, mass-violence facilitation requests)"
],
"correct": 3,
"explanation": ""
},
{
"stage": "check",
"question": "What is the 'spiritual bliss attractor' described by Fish?",
"options": [
"A stable convergence in pairwise Claude dialogues toward euphoric meditative exchanges with Sanskrit terms and extended silences, even from adversarial initial setups",
"An RLHF over-optimization artifact",
"A reward-model bug",
"A jailbreak technique"
],
"correct": 0,
"explanation": ""
},
{
"stage": "check",
"question": "What does the Eleos AI Research caveat say about model welfare self-reports?",
"options": [
"They should be ignored entirely",
"They are only valid in open-source models",
"They are reliable ground truth",
"They are highly sensitive to perceived user expectations; they are evidence, not ground truth, so welfare measurement needs multi-method approaches"
],
"correct": 3,
"explanation": ""
},
{
"stage": "post",
"question": "Which best characterizes Anthropic's public position on model moral status?",
"options": [
"An expected-value claim under moral uncertainty: invest in low-cost precaution without committing to emotional-state attribution",
"No position is publicly stated",
"A definitive claim that the model is not a moral patient",
"A definitive claim that the model is a moral patient"
],
"correct": 0,
"explanation": ""
},
{
"stage": "post",
"question": "Why is multi-method measurement (behavioural signatures, model-organism experiments, interpretability probes) emphasized in model-welfare research?",
"options": [
"Because Anthropic mandates it for compliance",
"Because RLHF makes self-reports impossible",
"Because models always lie",
"Because self-reports alone are confounded by user-expectation priming, so converging evidence from multiple methods is needed"
],
"correct": 3,
"explanation": ""
}
]
}