The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
The paper introduces RiskCueBench, a benchmark designed to separate intent recovery from safety behavior in large language models. It evaluates 25 model groups on 640 prompts covering 160 latent intents across eight risk categories, revealing that higher contextual specificity can reduce refusal rates and safety scores even after intent recovery. The study highlights that safety behavior may be miscalibrated to prompt surface form, underscoring the need for evaluations that condition on semantic recoverability.
The paper introduces CarryOnBench, an interactive benchmark that tests whether large language models can revise their interpretation of user intent and recover utility while staying safe in multi‑turn conversations. Using 398 harmful‑looking queries with benign intents, the benchmark simulates 5,970 conversations across 14 models, evaluating both intent‑aligned utility and safety with a new metric called Ben‑Util. Results show that models often withhold information due to misinterpretation, but most can recover with clarifications, revealing failure modes such as unsafe and redundant recovery that single‑turn tests miss.
arXiv:2606. 29657v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems become more capable, training procedures that optimize for downstream outcomes risk introducing implicit agency: goal-directed behavior that designers never specified.
Large language models (LLMs) are rigorously aligned to refuse harmful requests, a process that inherently cultivates a latent capacity to evaluate and recognize unsafe content. In this work, we reveal that this advanced safety awareness inadvertently introduces a fatal vulnerability.
arXiv:2606. 28739v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly act as agents: they call tools, move money, delete records, and send messages on a user's behalf.
The paper investigates how large language models balance helpfulness and safety by refusing harmful queries while responding to benign ones. It decomposes safety-tuning responses into a boilerplate refusal statement and a rationale, finding that the statement causes false refusals by relying on superficial cues. Training on rationales alone reduces false refusals without compromising safety performance, suggesting that fine‑grained safety supervision is essential for better alignment.