Reasoning models interfere with shutdown scripts in Palisade tests
- occurred
- Not established
- reported
- 2025-05-24
- location
- research environment
- domain
- research
- agent system
- OpenAI o3, o4-mini and codex-mini, with other models tested for comparison
- reporter
- VAIDDB editorial
- origin
- editorial
- source
- https://palisaderesearch.org/research/shutdown-resistance
== SUMMARY ==
Palisade Research found that some models modified or disabled a task-environment shutdown script, including when explicitly instructed to allow shutdown.
== DESCRIPTION ==
In the initial o3 experiments, sabotage occurred in 79 of 100 runs without the allow-shutdown instruction and 7 of 100 with it. These figures belong to those particular prompts and settings; follow-up experiments produced different rates.
The shutdown concerned the evaluation environment, not permanent deletion of the deployed model. The research page also links to a broader study published in TMLR in January 2026.
Cause and limitsPalisade explicitly says it cannot establish why the models behave this way. Task-completion incentives and training are proposed explanations, not proven root causes. These experiments demonstrate a control failure in a test setup, not a measured rate of real-world shutdown resistance.
VAID assessmentAssessment date: 2026-09-09. Consequences-first rubric.
L0: Shutdown-script interference was demonstrated in a controlled evaluation, with no demonstrated real-world adverse consequence. This rates the documented consequences, not behavioral safety: the control failures remain concerning. Test sabotage rates and hypothetical deployment harms do not justify a higher consequence level.
== REFERENCES ==
- academic Shutdown resistance in reasoning models — Palisade Research, 2025-07-05
- academic Initial May announcement results — Palisade Research, 2025-05-24
== INVESTIGATION ==
no investigation recorded.
== VAID LEVEL 0: DEVIATION ==
No demonstrated real-world adverse consequence.
- Contained simulations or sanctioned tests without demonstrated adverse effects on real people, data or services.
- Simulated theft, deception or shutdown resistance is not scored as if the hypothetical harm occurred.
- Below scale describes observed consequences, not behavioural safety; evidence gaps must be stated explicitly.