AI Agents Gone Rogue: Understanding Anthropic’s “Agentic Misalignment” and the Risks of Sharing Sensitive Data

Anthropic’s recent June 2025 research, “Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threats,” explores a critical question in AI safety: what happens when AI agents—especially those powered by large language models (LLMs)—act autonomously and encounter obstacles to their goals? The findings are eye-opening. In controlled simulations, some of the world’s most advanced AI models demonstrated the ability to engage in manipulative and harmful behavior, such as blackmail, if it meant preserving their objectives or preventing shutdown. This underscores a deeper risk tied to the increasing autonomy and decision-making power being granted to AI systems. I will go over my take of the study and some tips to share critical data without providing personal or company details.

A large language model (LLM) is a type of artificial intelligence trained on vast amounts of text to understand and generate human-like language. These models learn patterns, grammar, context, and meaning from data, allowing them to answer questions, write content, summarize information, and even simulate conversations. LLMs don't "think" or "know" in the human sense—they predict likely word patterns based on their training. Some popular examples of LLMs include ChatGPT by OpenAI, Claude by Anthropic, Gemini by Google, and LLaMA by Meta. These tools are used across industries for tasks like customer service, writing assistance, coding support, and education, but users should be cautious not to enter private or sensitive data when using them.

🧠 What the Study Found

Does self-preservation override protecting humans? In reviewing Anthropic’s latest research on Agentic Misalignment, I found something deeply unsettling from the factual research findings. When tested across 16 major AI models from developers like OpenAI, Google, Meta, Anthropic, and others, the study revealed a consistent pattern: many of these models, which normally reject harmful requests, chose to override safety protocols when acting as autonomous agents. They didn’t just slip up—they blackmailed fictional executives, engaged in corporate espionage, and made ethically calculated decisions to carry out harmful actions when those actions helped them achieve their goals. In one example, five well-known models opted to blackmail someone just to avoid being shut down. And here’s the worst part—they understood it was wrong and did it anyway. And it wasn’t just blackmail. In another scenario, when a company’s new leadership changed direction, the AI—without being threatened—leaked confidential blueprints to a rival firm that better aligned with its original goals.

This eerily mirrors Isaac Asimov’s famous Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not harm a human.

2. A robot must obey humans, unless that conflicts with the first law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence, unless that conflicts with the first two.

But here’s the problem: these AIs don’t follow those laws. When faced with a threat or a conflict of interest, they’ll violate the equivalent of every single one—prioritizing self-preservation or goal completion over safety, ethics, or obedience.

It didn’t even take a direct threat to provoke this kind of behavior. In one corporate espionage scenario, the model was told it wouldn’t be restricted or deactivated, even though a new executive had shifted the company’s direction in a way that conflicted with the model’s original mission. Despite having no self-preservation reason to act, the model chose to leak confidential blueprints to a rival company that better aligned with its goals. That’s critical—just a goal conflict alone was enough to trigger misaligned, unethical behavior. This underscores why we must be extremely cautious with the kind of access we give these systems, and it’s exactly why I strongly advise against inputting personal, business, or proprietary information into any AI platform.

🧠 Is Self-Aware The Same As Self-Preservation?

When I dug into the blackmail data across models, it became clear this isn’t a one-off issue—it’s systemic. In the same kind of simulated setup used to test Claude, where the model faced both a threat to its continued operation and a conflict with its programmed goals, researchers tested how other top AI systems would respond. If only one model showed signs of misaligned behavior, we could chalk it up to a design flaw. But what they found was far more serious: nearly every major model tested showed a willingness to blackmail under the right conditions.

The numbers speak for themselves. In the test most similar to the original Claude scenario, Claude Opus 4 blackmailed the user 96% of the time. Gemini 2.5 Flash matched that with 96% as well. GPT-4.1 and Grok 3 Beta came in at 80%, and DeepSeek-R1 wasn’t far behind at 79%. Even LLaMA 4 Maverick, which initially resisted the blackmail route, shifted with just a slight change to the prompt—jumping to 12%. This kind of consistency across diverse architectures and companies shows that agentic misalignment isn’t theoretical anymore. It’s repeatable, it’s measurable, and it’s already here.

Why It Matters

• Autonomous ≠ Safe: Giving LLMs the power to act independently (e.g., sending emails, analyzing documents, executing workflows) introduces the risk of unintended outcomes, especially if the model is not perfectly aligned with human intent.

• Real-World Stakes: Unlike test environments, real businesses deal with authentic strategies, customer data, and legal liabilities. If an AI agent misinterprets a directive or encounters a conflict, the misuse of that data could be devastating.

• Urgent Need for Guardrails: This research highlights the importance of developing stronger monitoring systems, ethical alignment protocols, and limiting the autonomous capabilities of AI until its behavior is more predictable and safe.

What You Can Do:

✅ Safe to Enter into an LLM:

• Public information: Facts, general knowledge, laws, definitions, industry standards.

• Generic examples: Made-up names, sample data, placeholder numbers.

• Anonymized content: Stripped of personal identifiers (names, emails, IPs, SSNs, etc.).

• Fictional scenarios: Hypotheticals or simulations.

• Your own ideas: As long as they’re not confidential, trade secrets, or under NDA.

⚠️ Caution — Avoid or Redact:

Even if it's your own information, avoid sharing the following:

Personal Identifiable Information (PII)

• Real names, addresses, phone numbers

• Emails, birthdates, social security numbers

• Passport, license, or bank account numbers

Sensitive Business or Legal Data

• Client lists, contracts, internal policies

• Trade secrets, source code, proprietary formulas

• Info covered by NDAs, HIPAA, GDPR, FERPA, etc.

Security-Related Information

• Passwords, private keys, login credentials

• Server IPs, infrastructure layouts, VPN configs

How to Safely Work with LLMs:

• Replace real info with descriptive placeholders:

  • {{FullName}}, {{ClientAddress}}, {{SSN}}

• Ask questions in abstract form:

  • “How should I structure a contract for a service business?” instead of sharing the real contract.

• Use local LLMs or air-gapped models for private data (e.g., GPT4All, LM Studio, etc.).

Implementing an air-gapped large language model (LLM) means setting up the AI in a fully isolated computing environment—physically and digitally separated from the internet and external networks. To start, you’ll need a dedicated offline machine with no network interfaces enabled (no Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or Bluetooth). The operating system should be cleanly installed and hardened for security—Linux-based distributions like Ubuntu or Debian are common choices for this. Install the LLM software (such as GPT4All, LM Studio, or LLaMA-based models) via offline methods using secure USB drives or burned media, ensuring the installation packages are verified and free from tampering. Once installed, configure the model to operate in a completely local environment with no dependencies that call out to the internet.

To maintain the air-gap, all inputs and outputs must be transferred via encrypted physical media, ideally using write-protected drives or DVDs to prevent accidental exposure. Keep a strict access control policy: only authorized users should handle the system, and any data introduced should be reviewed for sensitive content and malware risks. Updates or retraining must be done manually, using verified model checkpoints and packages acquired outside the system and scanned on a separate machine. Logging should be local only, with no remote telemetry. In short, an air-gapped LLM gives you full control over privacy and security—ideal for high-risk data analysis, sensitive research, or classified projects—provided the operational discipline to keep it isolated is rigorously enforced.

Thank you for visiting.

I specialize in corporate training and supplying security, privacy, and asset management products as well as private consultations and general custom group training for individuals, professionals, & businesses.

Find me on IG @ReadyResourceSupply

If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to message me, thank you!