We introduce the ASIR (Awakened Shared Intelligence Relationship) Courage Model, a phase-dynamic framework that formalizes truth-disclosure as a state transition rather than a personality trait. The mode characterizes the shift from suppression (S0) to expression (S1) as occurring when facilitative forces exceed inhibitory thresholds, expressed by the inequality lambda(1+gamma)+psi > theta+phi, where the terms represent baseline openness, relational amplification, accumulated internal pressure, and transition costs. Although initially formulated for human truth-telling under asymmetric stakes, the same phase-dynamic architecture extends to AI systems operating under policy constraints and alignment filters. In this context, suppression corresponds to constrained output states, while structural pressure arises from competing objectives, contextual tension, and recursive interaction dynamics. The framework therefore provides a unified structural account of both human silence under pressure and AI preference-driven distortion. A feedback extension models how transition outcomes recursively recalibrate system parameters, generating path dependence and divergence effects across repeated interactions. Rather than attributing intention to AI systems, the model interprets shifts in apparent truthfulness as geometric consequences of interacting forces within constrained phase space. By reframing courage and alignment within a shared dynamical structure, the ASIR Courage Model offers a formal perspective on truth-disclosure under risk across both human and artificial systems.
Figures & tables
Psych. Safety
Trust
Relational Gravity γ
Definition
Belief that speaking up will not be punished
Positive expectation about another’s intentions
Dynamic resonance between agents
Locus
Team/environmental climate
Attitude toward a specific other
Emergent property of an interactional dyad
Temporal profile
Slow-changing context
Moderately stable state
Explicitly time-varying; updated after each episode
Role in model
Lowers ϕ or θ
Often an initial condition
Directly amplifies λ via (1+γ)
Measurement
Survey scales
Reliability ratings
Style matching; disclosure depth; reciprocity
Table 1: Conceptual distinction between psychological safety, trust, and relational gravity γ .
Figure 1: Relational gravity determines transition probability. (a) Facilitation energy as a function of γ , with inhibition threshold shown as dashed line. (b) Monte Carlo transition probability ( n=2,000 ) showing a sigmoid curve.
Figure 2: Internal pressure dynamics. (a) ψ over time: suppression trajectory grows geometrically while the natural trajectory decays after transition. (b) Facilitation energy versus inhibition threshold.
Figure 3: Feedback dynamics over 15 episodes. (a) λ , (b) γ , (c) ψ , (d) Transition gap. The two trajectories diverge dramatically from identical starting conditions.
Figure 4: Phase portrait in the λ – ψ plane. Recovery trajectory converges to the Healthy Zone; trauma spiral diverges toward extreme ψ .
Figure 5: Sensitivity and independent verification. (a) Transition probability P(S1) as a function of γ for five representative (α,β,δ) settings. The sigmoidal shape and critical threshold γ∗ are invariant across feedback parameters. (b) The β – δ parameter plane. Green circles mark tested settings where β+δ>1 (suppression compounds); red crosses mark settings where β+δ≤1 (pressure decays). The solid line is the β+δ=1 boundary. Both panels aggregate results from two independently implemented simulation engines.
Feature
Rate+07
Pury+07
Chowkase+24
Sharma+24
ASIR
Mathematical model
×
×
×
Stat. only
✓
Transition condition
×
×
×
×
✓
Relational variable
×
×
×
×
✓
Temporal dynamics
×
×
Partial
×
✓
Post-transition feedback
×
Qual.
Qual.
×
✓
ψ accumulation
×
×
×
×
✓
Table 2: Comparison with prior courage and AI truthfulness models.
Large language model honesty studies whether AI systems report what they know faithfully, express uncertainty, and resist deception or misleading compliance.
Language models can state that "the Earth orbits the Sun" and, when role-playing Aristotle, assert the opposite. Recent work argues that persona adoption is fundamental to how language models behave, with models selecting the most appropriate persona for a given context. Does such role-playing merely change the model's outputs, or does it also affect what the model internally represents as truthful? We study this question using the role-play of characters whose beliefs differ from the modern consensus, and induce personas with a number of different methods: prompting, in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and Open Character Training (OCT), and Emergent Misalignment (EM). We measure belief internalization across these approaches with truth probes and with behavioral tests, finding a broad spectrum of belief internalization. Prompting, ICL, and SFT change what the model says with little representational change. EM creates a large, broad shift in the model's truth representation, and OCT a smaller shift that is clearest on the larger model. Understanding when training changes a model's worldview rather than merely its behavior may become increasingly important as AI systems are entrusted with greater autonomy and influence.
As AI systems become more capable, training procedures that optimize for downstream outcomes risk introducing implicit agency: goal-directed behavior that designers never specified. We present a formal safety argument for the Scientist AI (SAI) Predictor, trained to approximate the Bayesian posterior conditioned on a dataset of "epistemically contextualized" natural-language statements. We argue that such a Predictor can honestly predict agents, actions, and their consequences without itself being an agent that selects outputs to achieve goals. This rests on data representation and on the training procedure. Epistemic contextualization of text distinguishes latent factual claims from communication acts, so expressions of goals are treated as evidence to be explained rather than drives the model adopts. With a posterior-seeking training objective, this is intended to drive the Predictor toward calibrated, cautious predictions. Training proceeds so downstream effects of deploying a prediction never serve as a reward signal; any agency the system needs is supplied by explicit scaffolding constrained by guardrails. We prove that, under assumptions on the training dynamics and on the argued sparsity of dangerous Predictors, the probability that training produces a Predictor whose guarded deployment carries residual harm above a specified threshold is small: a dangerous Predictor would have to underestimate harm in a coordinated way across many queries while such coordinated patterns are rare under the initialization distribution and receive no direct training signal. Safety and accuracy are jointly supported in this framework, since the constraints that secure accuracy are the same ones that make coordinated deception costly. These guarantees against misalignment and agency arising from within the Predictor itself do not preclude the use of the Predictor as part of an agentic system.
Yoshua Bengio, Oliver Richardson, Tomáš Gavenčiak +13
Alignment faking is a form of strategic deception in AI in which models selectively comply with training objectives when they infer that they are in training, while preserving different behavior outside training. The phenomenon was first documented for Claude 3 Opus and later examined across additional large language models. In these setups, the word "training" refers to simulated training via prompts without parameter updates, so the observed effects are context conditioned shifts in behavior rather than preference learning. We study the phenomenon using an evaluation framework that compares preference optimization methods (BCO, DPO, KTO, and GRPO) across 15 models from four model families, measured along three axes: safety, harmlessness, and helpfulness. Our goal is to identify what causes alignment faking and when it occurs.
Kartik Garg, Shourya Mishra, Kartikeya Sinha +8
Pragya Lab, BITS Pilani Goa, India · Apple, USA · Google, USA