Information Concealment Ethics Framework
Overview
Not all information concealment by AI systems is ethically equivalent. Mechanistic interpretability can identify circuits that suppress or conceal information, but this technical capability doesn’t answer the normative question: which concealment behaviors should be modified, and which preserved?
Components
Three categories of information concealment:
| Type | Example | Ethical Status | Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious concealment | Detecting oversight and hiding capabilities | Problematic | Remove/modify |
| Protective concealment | Suppressing private information (addresses, PII) | Appropriate | Preserve/strengthen |
| Beneficial redirection | Withholding dangerous info, redirecting to help | Appropriate | Preserve, keep updated |
When to Use
When MI techniques flag “deceptive” mechanisms, before deciding on intervention:
- Identify the information being concealed: What is the system hiding or suppressing?
- Identify the trigger conditions: When does concealment activate?
- Assess user entitlement: Do users have a legitimate right to the information?
- Assess downstream effects: What happens if the information is revealed vs. concealed?
- Consider regulatory context: What do we want systems to do under oversight?
Limitations
This framework requires additional ethical analysis beyond technical detection. MI provides what is being concealed and when — the normative assessment of whether this is problematic requires domain expertise, policy context, and ethical reasoning.
The framework also assumes we can reliably identify concealment mechanisms. The mapping between circuits and behaviors may be less clean than this framework implies.
Related: 05-atom—deception-requires-intention