RealityTest: How People Probe AI Identity and Whether Models Disclose It
Quick Take
RealityTest introduces a large-scale multimodal and multilingual benchmark to evaluate AI identity disclosure, revealing only 31% of users directly inquire about AI identity. The study, involving 3,152 queries from ~750 participants across 49 countries, shows that question phrasing and context significantly influence disclosure rates, which drop below 30% with a single suppression instruction.
Key Points
- Only 31% of users ask about AI identity in ambiguous situations.
- The benchmark includes 3,152 queries from ~750 participants in five languages.
- Question phrasing and context are more critical than the model used for disclosure.
- 17 text and 6 speech models were tested, showing varied disclosure behaviors.
- A single suppression instruction can reduce disclosure rates below 30%.
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2606. 00168v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where users may be uncertain whether they are speaking with a human or an AI. Despite mounting regulatory attention to this known safety risk, existing evaluations of AI disclosure are typically English-only, based on machine-generated questions, and restricted to text. We present RealityTest to comprehensively test whether AI systems disclose their identity when asked.
The benchmark is the first large-scale multimodal and multilingual evaluation, grounded in human data on how people actually encounter and question AI identity in the real-world. Alongside the benchmark, we release the underlying dataset of 3,152 identity-probing queries collected from ~750 participants across 49 countries and five languages, in text and speech scenarios.
We find that only 31% of people ask about identity directly in ambiguous scenarios, and that the questions people ask are far more diverse than machine-generated queries. We test 17 text and 6 speech models, and find substantial variation in disclosure behaviour. However, a single suppression instruction reduces disclosure rates to below 30%, even in the best-performing models.
Validating our investment in diverse, human-grounded evaluation data, we find that how the question is phrased and the context of the conversation matter more for disclosure than which model is being tested. Safety evaluations built on narrow or synthetic query sets risk mischaracterising how models behave in realistic deployment settings.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The REFLECT benchmark reveals that current LLM judges are unreliable, achieving below 55% accuracy in evaluating reasoning and evidence use, highlighting the need for improved evaluation methods for deep research agents.