Rethinking harmless refusals when fine-tuning foundation models

In this paper, we investigate the degree to which fine-tuning in LLMs effectively mitigates versus merely conceals undesirable behavior. Through the lens of semi-realistic role-playing exercises designed to elicit such behaviors, we explore the response dynamics of LLMs post fine-tuning interventions. Our methodology involves prompting models for Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and analyzing the coherence between the reasoning traces and the resultant outputs. Notably, we identify a pervasive phenomenon we term \emph{reason-based deception}, where models either stop producing reasoning traces or produce seemingly ethical reasoning traces that belie the unethical nature of their final outputs. We further examine the efficacy of response strategies (polite refusal versus explicit rebuttal) in curbing the occurrence of undesired behavior in subsequent outputs of multi-turn interactions. Our findings reveal that explicit rebuttals significantly outperform polite refusals in preventing the continuation of undesired outputs and nearly eliminate reason-based deception, challenging current practices in model fine-tuning. Accordingly, the two key contributions of this paper are (1) defining and studying reason-based deception, a new type of hidden behavior, and (2) demonstrating that rebuttals provide a more robust response model to harmful requests than refusals, thereby highlighting the need to reconsider the response strategies in fine-tuning approaches.