arXiv AI By Rian Touchent (ALMAnaCH)

Don't Want Your LLM to Recommend Nuclear Strike? Try Asking It in Japanese

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2608. 12373v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used in strategic and advisory contexts, yet their safety alignment is typically evaluated in English only.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 21

Why Do LLMs Struggle in Strategic Play? Broken Links Between Observations, Beliefs, and Actions

The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) struggle in strategic decision-making under incomplete information. It identifies two key gaps: an observation‑belief gap where LLMs’ internal representations of game states are accurate but brittle, and a belief‑action gap where converting these internal beliefs into actions is weak, leading to suboptimal payoffs. Experiments with Llama 3.1, Qwen3, and gpt‑oss confirm that acting optimally on decoded beliefs would improve outcomes in most games, highlighting a bottleneck in belief‑to‑action conversion.

By Jan Sobotka, Mustafa O. Karabag, Ufuk Topcu
arXiv AI
Jul 8

ROK-FORTRESS: Measuring the Effect of Geopolitical Transcreation for National Security and Public Safety

arXiv:2605. 14152v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for large language models (LLMs) increasingly target high-stakes National Security and Public Safety (NSPS) risks, yet multilingual safety is mostly assessed through translation-only benchmarks that preserve the underlying scenario, leaving how language and geopolitical context interact largely unexamined beyond a few language pairs.

By Michael S. Lee, Yash Maurya, Drew Rein, Bert Herring, Jonathan Nguyen, Kyungho Song, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Jiyeon Cho, Kaustubh Deshpande, Yeongkyun Jang, Jiyeon Joo, Minn Seok Choi, Evi Fuelle, Christina Q. Knight, Joseph Brandifino, Max Fenkell