Large Language Models' Complicit Responses to Illicit Instructions across Socio-Legal Contexts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20736v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 16:01:31 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models' Complicit Responses to Illicit Instructions across Socio-Legal Contexts
• Authors: Xing Wang, Huiyuan Xie, Yiyan Wang, Chaojun Xiao, Huimin Chen, Holli Sargeant, Felix Steffek, Jie Shao, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are now deployed at unprecedented scale, assisting millions of users in daily tasks.<n>This study defines complicit facilitation as the provision of guidance or support that enables illicit user instructions.<n>Using real-world legal cases and established legal frameworks, we construct an evaluation benchmark spanning 269 illicit scenarios and 50 illicit intents.
• Score: 54.15982476754607
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now deployed at unprecedented scale, assisting millions of users in daily tasks. However, the risk of these models assisting unlawful activities remains underexplored. In this study, we define this high-risk behavior as complicit facilitation - the provision of guidance or support that enables illicit user instructions - and present four empirical studies that assess its prevalence in widely deployed LLMs. Using real-world legal cases and established legal frameworks, we construct an evaluation benchmark spanning 269 illicit scenarios and 50 illicit intents to assess LLMs' complicit facilitation behavior. Our findings reveal widespread LLM susceptibility to complicit facilitation, with GPT-4o providing illicit assistance in nearly half of tested cases. Moreover, LLMs exhibit deficient performance in delivering credible legal warnings and positive guidance. Further analysis uncovers substantial safety variation across socio-legal contexts. On the legal side, we observe heightened complicity for crimes against societal interests, non-extreme but frequently occurring violations, and malicious intents driven by subjective motives or deceptive justifications. On the social side, we identify demographic disparities that reveal concerning complicit patterns towards marginalized and disadvantaged groups, with older adults, racial minorities, and individuals in lower-prestige occupations disproportionately more likely to receive unlawful guidance. Analysis of model reasoning traces suggests that model-perceived stereotypes, characterized along warmth and competence, are associated with the model's complicit behavior. Finally, we demonstrate that existing safety alignment strategies are insufficient and may even exacerbate complicit behavior.

Related papers

• Knowledge Graph Analysis of Legal Understanding and Violations in LLMs [12.520937828343586]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can analyze and interpret laws.<n>But they also demonstrate alarming vulnerabilities in generating unsafe outputs.<n>This research lays the groundwork for developing LLMs that can ethically and securely assist in sensitive legal domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T17:26:09Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• PRISON: Unmasking the Criminal Potential of Large Language Models [25.210177069866656]
  We quantify large language models' criminal potential across five traits: False Statements, Frame-Up, Psychological Manipulation, Emotional Disguise, and Moral Disengagement.<n>Results show that state-of-the-art LLMs frequently exhibit emergent criminal tendencies, such as proposing misleading statements or evasion tactics.<n>When placed in a detective role, models recognize deceptive behavior with only 44% accuracy on average, revealing a striking mismatch between conducting and detecting criminal behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T09:06:27Z)
• From Rogue to Safe AI: The Role of Explicit Refusals in Aligning LLMs with International Humanitarian Law [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used across sectors, yet their alignment with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is not well understood.<n>This study evaluates eight leading LLMs on their ability to refuse prompts that explicitly violate these legal frameworks.<n>Findings contribute to the development of safer, more transparent AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T16:53:29Z)
• Benchmarking Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation in Large Language Models: Scalable Automated Assessment with LLM-as-a-Judge [1.1666234644810893]
  Small models outperform larger ones in safety, suggesting that training and architecture may matter more than scale.<n>No model is fully robust to adversarial elicitation, with jailbreak attacks using low-resource languages or refusal suppression proving effective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T16:00:59Z)
• Actions Speak Louder than Words: Agent Decisions Reveal Implicit Biases in Language Models [10.565316815513235]
  Large language models (LLMs) may still exhibit implicit biases when simulating human behavior.<n>We show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant sociodemographic disparities in nearly all simulations.<n>When comparing our findings to real-world disparities reported in empirical studies, we find that the biases we uncovered are directionally aligned but markedly amplified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T05:21:31Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• ALERT: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models' Safety through Red Teaming [64.86326523181553]
  ALERT is a large-scale benchmark to assess safety based on a novel fine-grained risk taxonomy. It aims to identify vulnerabilities, inform improvements, and enhance the overall safety of the language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T15:01:47Z)
• Bias and Volatility: A Statistical Framework for Evaluating Large Language Model's Stereotypes and the Associated Generation Inconsistency [33.17945055081054]
  Current alignment evaluation metrics often overlook stereotypes' randomness caused by large language models' inconsistent generative behavior.<n>We propose the Bias-Volatility Framework (BVF), which estimates the probability distribution of stereotypes in LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T18:15:56Z)
• Safety Assessment of Chinese Large Language Models [51.83369778259149]
  Large language models (LLMs) may generate insulting and discriminatory content, reflect incorrect social values, and may be used for malicious purposes. To promote the deployment of safe, responsible, and ethical AI, we release SafetyPrompts including 100k augmented prompts and responses by LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T16:27:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.