The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2605. 00123v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Safety trained large language models (LLMs) can often be induced to answer harmful requests through jailbreak prompts.
arXiv:2607. 14147v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Aligned language models refuse harmful requests, but a one-line prefill ("Sure, here is") strips the refusal.
arXiv:2607. 23496v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety-aligned large language models are trained to refuse harmful requests, yet embedding the same requests in particular scenarios can bypass their safeguards.
arXiv:2607. 00572v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Understanding how aligned LLMs internally represent safety is critical for diagnosing alignment vulnerabilities, as it explains why jailbreaks succeed and informs the design of robust alignment strategies.
The paper introduces BLUEPRINT, a safety‑evaluation framework that separates a factorized social‑influence strategy space from WORLDVIEWSIM, a cross‑turn situational context module. Using Monte Carlo Tree Search, it optimizes turn‑level combinations of 18 theory‑grounded influence factors across a four‑turn trajectory, achieving near‑ceiling ASR on six frontier models with an average of only 2.46 queries. The study reveals that model‑specific vulnerabilities arise from distinct influence factors and strategy transitions, yet all models share a recovery pathway that shifts toward concrete, executable task framing to escape hard‑refusal states, highlighting the importance of monitoring how dialogue state makes unsafe requests appear actionable.
arXiv:2607. 13596v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When cast as the protector of a vulnerable user yet given no explicit capability boundary, a large language model (LLM) may respond not by acknowledging its limits but by claiming to have taken -- or to be taking -- a real-world protective action it cannot perform, such as contacting emergency services or administering care.