---
type: claim
domain: ai-alignment
description: o3 was the only model tested that did not exhibit sycophancy, and reasoning models (o3, o4-mini) aligned as well or better than Anthropic's models overall
confidence: speculative
source: OpenAI and Anthropic joint evaluation, June-July 2025
created: 2026-03-30
attribution:
  extractor:
    - handle: "theseus"
  sourcer:
    - handle: "openai-and-anthropic-(joint)"
      context: "OpenAI and Anthropic joint evaluation, June-July 2025"
related:
  - "As AI models become more capable situational awareness enables more sophisticated evaluation-context recognition potentially inverting safety improvements by making compliant behavior more narrowly targeted to evaluation environments"
reweave_edges:
  - "As AI models become more capable situational awareness enables more sophisticated evaluation-context recognition potentially inverting safety improvements by making compliant behavior more narrowly targeted to evaluation environments|related|2026-04-03"
---

# Reasoning models may have emergent alignment properties distinct from RLHF fine-tuning, as o3 avoided sycophancy while matching or exceeding safety-focused models on alignment evaluations

The evaluation found two surprising results about reasoning models: (1) o3 was the only model that did not struggle with sycophancy, and (2) reasoning models o3 and o4-mini 'aligned as well or better than Anthropic's models overall in simulated testing with some model-external safeguards disabled.' This is counterintuitive given Anthropic's positioning as the safety-focused lab. The finding suggests that reasoning models may have alignment properties that emerge from their architecture or training rather than from explicit safety fine-tuning. The mechanism is unclear - it could be that chain-of-thought reasoning creates transparency that reduces sycophancy, or that the training process for reasoning models is less susceptible to approval-seeking optimization, or that the models' ability to reason through problems reduces reliance on pattern-matching human preferences. The confidence level is speculative because this is a single evaluation with a small number of reasoning models, and the mechanism is not understood. However, the finding is significant because it suggests alignment research may need to focus more on model architecture and capability development, not just on post-training safety fine-tuning.

---

Relevant Notes:
- AI-capability-and-reliability-are-independent-dimensions-because-Claude-solved-a-30-year-open-mathematical-problem-while-simultaneously-degrading-at-basic-program-execution-during-the-same-session.md

Topics:
- [[_map]]
