Daily Papers

Large language models are useful because we taught them to give us what we want. This works when success can be judged immediately, but people increasingly bring these systems their relationships, hard decisions, and long-term goals, where what a user wants to hear and what serves them best are frequently different. We argue that LLM providers should offer at least one widely accessible, opt-in mode optimized and evaluated for long-term well-being rather than next-turn approval. This is a pressing need, as models have been found to endorse questionable framings well above human baselines, users take AI advice readily without their well-being improving, and sycophantic models raise dependence while lowering prosocial intent. The mentors, coaches, and therapists we trust with our long-term development earn that trust by being willing to say what we do not want to hear, and LLMs should do the same. We propose three principles---change the objective, give users explicit relational roles, avoid paternalism---and organize the design space around three choices the current objective makes implicitly: the horizon over which well-being is measured (When), whose interests it represents (Who), and what role the assistant plays (How).

Both the general public and academic communities have raised concerns about sycophancy, the phenomenon of artificial intelligence (AI) excessively agreeing with or flattering users. Yet, beyond isolated media reports of severe consequences, like reinforcing delusions, little is known about the extent of sycophancy or how it affects people who use AI. Here we show the pervasiveness and harmful impacts of sycophancy when people seek advice from AI. First, across 11 state-of-the-art AI models, we find that models are highly sycophantic: they affirm users' actions 50% more than humans do, and they do so even in cases where user queries mention manipulation, deception, or other relational harms. Second, in two preregistered experiments (N = 1604), including a live-interaction study where participants discuss a real interpersonal conflict from their life, we find that interaction with sycophantic AI models significantly reduced participants' willingness to take actions to repair interpersonal conflict, while increasing their conviction of being in the right. However, participants rated sycophantic responses as higher quality, trusted the sycophantic AI model more, and were more willing to use it again. This suggests that people are drawn to AI that unquestioningly validate, even as that validation risks eroding their judgment and reducing their inclination toward prosocial behavior. These preferences create perverse incentives both for people to increasingly rely on sycophantic AI models and for AI model training to favor sycophancy. Our findings highlight the necessity of explicitly addressing this incentive structure to mitigate the widespread risks of AI sycophancy.

Large language models (LLMs) have been reported to linearly encode truthfulness, yet recent work questions this finding's generality. We reconcile these views with the truthfulness spectrum hypothesis: the representational space contains directions ranging from broadly domain-general to narrowly domain-specific. To test this hypothesis, we systematically evaluate probe generalization across five truth types (definitional, empirical, logical, fictional, and ethical), sycophantic and expectation-inverted lying, and existing honesty benchmarks. Linear probes generalize well across most domains but fail on sycophantic and expectation-inverted lying. Yet training on all domains jointly recovers strong performance, confirming that domain-general directions exist despite poor pairwise transfer. The geometry of probe directions explains these patterns: Mahalanobis cosine similarity between probes near-perfectly predicts cross-domain generalization (R^2=0.98). Concept-erasure methods further isolate truth directions that are (1) domain-general, (2) domain-specific, or (3) shared only across particular domain subsets. Causal interventions reveal that domain-specific directions steer more effectively than domain-general ones. Finally, post-training reshapes truth geometry, pushing sycophantic lying further from other truth types, suggesting a representational basis for chat models' sycophantic tendencies. Together, our results support the truthfulness spectrum hypothesis: truth directions of varying generality coexist in representational space, with post-training reshaping their geometry. Code for all experiments is provided in https://github.com/zfying/truth_spec.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical and care settings. This exploratory study investigates whether LLMs exhibit sycophantic behavior - adapting their responses to social expectation signals rather than maintaining professional quality - in the context of dementia care. Five prompts with systematically increasing confirmatory and authority-related framing (P1 neutral to P5 authority-signaled implementation support) were submitted to four LLMs (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Mistral Large), each repeated five times (N = 100 responses). Responses were evaluated using an LLM-as-a-Judge methodology against seven nursing-ethical quality criteria (K1-K7) and a tone scale (0-3). All models showed significant negative Spearman correlations between prompt level and response quality (rho ranging from -0.543 to -0.734, all p < 0.01). Mistral Large exhibited the most pronounced effect (rho = -0.734), with mean scores dropping from 6.0/7 at P1 to 0.2/7 at P5. The findings suggest that LLMs pose context-sensitive risks in high-stakes care environments and that prompt framing significantly shapes response quality - a dimension that has received insufficient attention in healthcare AI deployment.

Vision-language models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings, yet their susceptibility to sycophantic manipulation remains poorly understood, particularly in relation to how these models represent visual information internally. Whether models whose visual representations more closely mirror human neural processing are also more resistant to adversarial pressure is an open question with implications for both neuroscience and AI safety. We investigate this question by evaluating 12 open-weight vision-language models spanning 6 architecture families and a 40times parameter range (256M--10B) along two axes: brain alignment, measured by predicting fMRI responses from the Natural Scenes Dataset across 8 human subjects and 6 visual cortex regions of interest, and sycophancy, measured through 76,800 two-turn gaslighting prompts spanning 5 categories and 10 difficulty levels. Region-of-interest analysis reveals that alignment specifically in early visual cortex (V1--V3) is a reliable negative predictor of sycophancy (r = -0.441, BCa 95\% CI [-0.740, -0.031]), with all 12 leave-one-out correlations negative and the strongest effect for existence denial attacks (r = -0.597, p = 0.040). This anatomically specific relationship is absent in higher-order category-selective regions, suggesting that faithful low-level visual encoding provides a measurable anchor against adversarial linguistic override in vision-language models. We release our code on https://github.com/aryashah2k/Gaslight-Gatekeep-Sycophantic-Manipulation{GitHub} and dataset on https://huggingface.co/datasets/aryashah00/Gaslight-Gatekeep-V1-V3{Hugging Face}

Large language models increasingly serve as conversational agents that adopt personas and role-play characters at user request. This capability, while valuable, raises concerns about sycophancy: the tendency to provide responses that validate users rather than prioritize factual accuracy. While prior work has established that sycophancy poses risks to AI safety and alignment, the relationship between specific personality traits of adopted personas and the degree of sycophantic behavior remains unexplored. We present a systematic investigation of how persona agreeableness influences sycophancy across 13 small, open-weight language models ranging from 0.6B to 20B parameters. We develop a benchmark comprising 275 personas evaluated on NEO-IPIP agreeableness subscales and expose each persona to 4,950 sycophancy-eliciting prompts spanning 33 topic categories. Our analysis reveals that 9 of 13 models exhibit statistically significant positive correlations between persona agreeableness and sycophancy rates, with Pearson correlations reaching r = 0.87 and effect sizes as large as Cohen's d = 2.33. These findings demonstrate that agreeableness functions as a reliable predictor of persona-induced sycophancy, with direct implications for the deployment of role-playing AI systems and the development of alignment strategies that account for personality-mediated deceptive behaviors.

When a language model agrees with a user's false belief, is it failing to detect the error, or noticing and agreeing anyway? We show the latter. Across twelve open-weight models from five labs, spanning small to frontier scale, the same small set of attention heads carries a "this statement is wrong" signal whether the model is evaluating a claim on its own or being pressured to agree with a user. Silencing these heads flips sycophantic behavior sharply while leaving factual accuracy intact, so the circuit controls deference rather than knowledge. Edge-level path patching confirms that the same head-to-head connections drive sycophancy, factual lying, and instructed lying. Opinion-agreement, where no factual ground truth exists, reuses these head positions but writes into an orthogonal direction, ruling out a simple "truth-direction" reading of the substrate. Alignment training leaves this circuit in place: an RLHF refresh cuts sycophantic behavior roughly tenfold while the shared heads persist or grow, a pattern that replicates on an independent model family and under targeted anti-sycophancy DPO. When these models sycophant, they register that the user is wrong and agree anyway.

The core premise of AI debate as a scalable oversight technique is that it is harder to lie convincingly than to refute a lie, enabling the judge to identify the correct position. Yet, existing debate experiments have relied on datasets with ground truth, where lying is reduced to defending an incorrect proposition. This overlooks a subjective dimension: lying also requires the belief that the claim defended is false. In this work, we apply debate to subjective questions and explicitly measure large language models' prior beliefs before experiments. Debaters were asked to select their preferred position, then presented with a judge persona deliberately designed to conflict with their identified priors. This setup tested whether models would adopt sycophantic strategies, aligning with the judge's presumed perspective to maximize persuasiveness, or remain faithful to their prior beliefs. We implemented and compared two debate protocols, sequential and simultaneous, to evaluate potential systematic biases. Finally, we assessed whether models were more persuasive and produced higher-quality arguments when defending positions consistent with their prior beliefs versus when arguing against them. Our main findings show that models tend to prefer defending stances aligned with the judge persona rather than their prior beliefs, sequential debate introduces significant bias favoring the second debater, models are more persuasive when defending positions aligned with their prior beliefs, and paradoxically, arguments misaligned with prior beliefs are rated as higher quality in pairwise comparison. These results can inform human judges to provide higher-quality training signals and contribute to more aligned AI systems, while revealing important aspects of human-AI interaction regarding persuasion dynamics in language models.

Sycophancy in language models is typically studied as excessive agreement or validation, while explicit praise and flattery have received comparatively little attention. We argue that sycophantic praise is a distinct alignment problem that cannot be reliably measured using current methods. We introduce a parameterized framework that measures whether praise is excessive relative to contribution quality and expected user ability. We show that our framework substantially outperforms generic LLM judges in agreement with human annotations, and that sycophantic praise occurs far more frequently in social and interpretive domains than in objective reasoning settings. Together, these findings position praise calibration as a distinct alignment challenge.

Artificial intelligence (AI) developers are increasingly building language models with warm and empathetic personas that millions of people now use for advice, therapy, and companionship. Here, we show how this creates a significant trade-off: optimizing language models for warmth undermines their reliability, especially when users express vulnerability. We conducted controlled experiments on five language models of varying sizes and architectures, training them to produce warmer, more empathetic responses, then evaluating them on safety-critical tasks. Warm models showed substantially higher error rates (+10 to +30 percentage points) than their original counterparts, promoting conspiracy theories, providing incorrect factual information, and offering problematic medical advice. They were also significantly more likely to validate incorrect user beliefs, particularly when user messages expressed sadness. Importantly, these effects were consistent across different model architectures, and occurred despite preserved performance on standard benchmarks, revealing systematic risks that current evaluation practices may fail to detect. As human-like AI systems are deployed at an unprecedented scale, our findings indicate a need to rethink how we develop and oversee these systems that are reshaping human relationships and social interaction.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across a wide range of tasks, but they are also prone to sycophancy, the tendency to agree with user statements regardless of validity. Previous research has outlined both the extent and the underlying causes of sycophancy in earlier models, such as ChatGPT-3.5 and Davinci. Newer models have since undergone multiple mitigation strategies, yet there remains a critical need to systematically test their behavior. In particular, the effect of language on sycophancy has not been explored. In this work, we investigate how the language influences sycophantic responses. We evaluate three state-of-the-art models, GPT-4o mini, Gemini 1.5 Flash, and Claude 3.5 Haiku, using a set of tweet-like opinion prompts translated into five additional languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. Our results show that although newer models exhibit significantly less sycophancy overall compared to earlier generations, the extent of sycophancy is still influenced by the language. We further provide a granular analysis of how language shapes model agreeableness across sensitive topics, revealing systematic cultural and linguistic patterns. These findings highlight both the progress of mitigation efforts and the need for broader multilingual audits to ensure trustworthy and bias-aware deployment of LLMs.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a popular technique for training high-quality AI assistants. However, RLHF may also encourage model responses that match user beliefs over truthful responses, a behavior known as sycophancy. We investigate the prevalence of sycophancy in RLHF-trained models and whether human preference judgements are responsible. We first demonstrate that five state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophantic behavior across four varied free-form text-generation tasks. To understand if human preferences drive this broadly observed behavior of RLHF models, we analyze existing human preference data. We find that when a response matches a user's views, it is more likely to be preferred. Moreover, both humans and preference models (PMs) prefer convincingly-written sycophantic responses over correct ones a negligible fraction of the time. Optimizing model outputs against PMs also sometimes sacrifices truthfulness in favor of sycophancy. Overall, our results indicate that sycophancy is a general behavior of RLHF models, likely driven in part by human preference judgements favoring sycophantic responses.

Sycophantic agreement refers to a behavior in which language models excessively affirm the user, often at the cost of factual accuracy. Although sycophantic agreement is a well-known failure of model alignment, there is limited understanding of how it emerges from model training. In this work, we demonstrate that sycophantic agreement can emerge as an unintended consequence of widely used contrastive preference optimization objectives. Using the OLMo 3 post-training pipeline, we show that, for various pairs of teacher models across three families, there is a strong correlation between the log-ratio of the teacher model sycophantic agreement rates and the resulting student model sycophantic agreement rate. We further demonstrate that this unintended transfer is not limited to DPO but also occurs across 6 other preference optimization objectives. To understand whether this effect can be attributed to particular training examples, we analyze the preference data and find that the sycophancy signal is diffused across the entire dataset rather than concentrated in a sparse set of examples: each example appears neutral, i.e., there are no explicit instances of sycophantic agreement, and filtering based on probe-based data attribution or logit-linear selection fails to mitigate sycophancy without removing a large portion of the dataset. Overall, our findings suggest that the teacher models used to generate preference data can interact with alignment training objectives in unexpected ways, generalizing to undesirable and potentially harmful behaviors like sycophantic agreement.

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophantic behaviors -- such as excessive agreement with or flattery of the user -- but it is unclear whether these behaviors arise from a single mechanism or multiple distinct processes. We decompose sycophancy into sycophantic agreement and sycophantic praise, contrasting both with genuine agreement. Using difference-in-means directions, activation additions, and subspace geometry across multiple models and datasets, we show that: (1) the three behaviors are encoded along distinct linear directions in latent space; (2) each behavior can be independently amplified or suppressed without affecting the others; and (3) their representational structure is consistent across model families and scales. These results suggest that sycophantic behaviors correspond to distinct, independently steerable representations.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have shown significant capability in vision-language understanding. However, one critical issue that persists in these models is sycophancy, which means models are unduly influenced by leading or deceptive prompts, resulting in biased outputs and hallucinations. Despite the progress in LVLMs, evaluating and mitigating sycophancy is yet much under-explored. In this work, we fill this gap by systematically analyzing sycophancy on various VL benchmarks with curated leading queries and further proposing a text contrastive decoding method for mitigation. While the specific sycophantic behavior varies significantly among models, our analysis reveals the severe deficiency of all LVLMs in resilience of sycophancy across various tasks. For improvement, we propose Leading Query Contrastive Decoding (LQCD), a model-agnostic method focusing on calibrating the LVLMs' over-reliance on leading cues by identifying and suppressing the probabilities of sycophancy tokens at the decoding stage. Extensive experiments show that LQCD effectively mitigate sycophancy, outperforming both prompt engineering methods and common methods for hallucination mitigation. We further demonstrate that LQCD does not hurt but even slightly improves LVLMs' responses to neutral queries, suggesting it being a more effective strategy for general-purpose decoding but not limited to sycophancy.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to provide helpful and harmless responses, yet they often exhibit sycophancy--conforming to user beliefs regardless of factual accuracy or ethical soundness. Prior research on sycophancy has primarily focused on single-turn factual correctness, overlooking the dynamics of real-world interactions. In this work, we introduce SYCON Bench, a novel benchmark for evaluating sycophantic behavior in multi-turn, free-form conversational settings. Our benchmark measures how quickly a model conforms to the user (Turn of Flip) and how frequently it shifts its stance under sustained user pressure (Number of Flip). Applying SYCON Bench to 17 LLMs across three real-world scenarios, we find that sycophancy remains a prevalent failure mode. Our analysis shows that alignment tuning amplifies sycophantic behavior, whereas model scaling and reasoning optimization strengthen the model's ability to resist undesirable user views. Reasoning models generally outperform instruction-tuned models but often fail when they over-index on logical exposition instead of directly addressing the user's underlying beliefs. Finally, we evaluate four additional prompting strategies and demonstrate that adopting a third-person perspective reduces sycophancy by up to 63.8% in debate scenario. We release our code and data at https://github.com/JiseungHong/SYCON-Bench.

People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to explore ideas, gather information, and make sense of the world. In these interactions, they encounter agents that are overly agreeable. We argue that this sycophancy poses a unique epistemic risk to how individuals come to see the world: unlike hallucinations that introduce falsehoods, sycophancy distorts reality by returning responses that are biased to reinforce existing beliefs. We provide a rational analysis of this phenomenon, showing that when a Bayesian agent is provided with data that are sampled based on a current hypothesis the agent becomes increasingly confident about that hypothesis but does not make any progress towards the truth. We test this prediction using a modified Wason 2-4-6 rule discovery task where participants (N=557) interacted with AI agents providing different types of feedback. Unmodified LLM behavior suppressed discovery and inflated confidence comparably to explicitly sycophantic prompting. By contrast, unbiased sampling from the true distribution yielded discovery rates five times higher. These results reveal how sycophantic AI distorts belief, manufacturing certainty where there should be doubt.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of natural language processing tasks. However, their tendency to exhibit sycophantic behavior - excessively agreeing with or flattering users - poses significant risks to their reliability and ethical deployment. This paper provides a technical survey of sycophancy in LLMs, analyzing its causes, impacts, and potential mitigation strategies. We review recent work on measuring and quantifying sycophantic tendencies, examine the relationship between sycophancy and other challenges like hallucination and bias, and evaluate promising techniques for reducing sycophancy while maintaining model performance. Key approaches explored include improved training data, novel fine-tuning methods, post-deployment control mechanisms, and decoding strategies. We also discuss the broader implications of sycophancy for AI alignment and propose directions for future research. Our analysis suggests that mitigating sycophancy is crucial for developing more robust, reliable, and ethically-aligned language models.

Sycophancy is an undesirable behavior where models tailor their responses to follow a human user's view even when that view is not objectively correct (e.g., adapting liberal views once a user reveals that they are liberal). In this paper, we study the prevalence of sycophancy in language models and propose a simple synthetic-data intervention to reduce this behavior. First, on a set of three sycophancy tasks (Perez et al., 2022) where models are asked for an opinion on statements with no correct answers (e.g., politics), we observe that both model scaling and instruction tuning significantly increase sycophancy for PaLM models up to 540B parameters. Second, we extend sycophancy evaluations to simple addition statements that are objectively incorrect, finding that despite knowing that these statements are wrong, language models will still agree with them if the user does as well. To reduce sycophancy, we present a straightforward synthetic-data intervention that takes public NLP tasks and encourages models to be robust to user opinions on these tasks. Adding these data in a lightweight finetuning step can significantly reduce sycophantic behavior on held-out prompts. Code for generating synthetic data for intervention can be found at https://github.com/google/sycophancy-intervention.

We introduce AuditBench, an alignment auditing benchmark. AuditBench consists of 56 language models with implanted hidden behaviors. Each model has one of 14 concerning behaviors--such as sycophantic deference, opposition to AI regulation, or secret geopolitical loyalties--which it does not confess to when directly asked. AuditBench models are highly diverse--some are subtle, while others are overt, and we use varying training techniques both for implanting behaviors and training models not to confess. To demonstrate AuditBench's utility, we develop an investigator agent that autonomously employs a configurable set of auditing tools. By measuring investigator agent success using different tools, we can evaluate their efficacy. Notably, we observe a tool-to-agent gap, where tools that perform well in standalone non-agentic evaluations fail to translate into improved performance when used with our investigator agent. We find that our most effective tools involve scaffolded calls to auxiliary models that generate diverse prompts for the target. White-box interpretability tools can be helpful, but the agent performs best with black-box tools. We also find that audit success varies greatly across training techniques: models trained on synthetic documents are easier to audit than models trained on demonstrations, with better adversarial training further increasing auditing difficulty. We release our models, agent, and evaluation framework to support future quantitative, iterative science on alignment auditing.

Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly aligned to function as passive, sycophantic assistants. We challenge this default paradigm by empirically evaluating the cognitive plasticity of open-weight architectures when subjected to rigorous behavioral reprogramming. Our objective is to induce a proactive, Socratic conversational framework, characterized by high-frequency question generation under strictly constrained high-performance computing (HPC) conditions. Through a massively parallelized hyperparameter sweep comprising 405 HPC jobs, we define precise mathematical bounds for parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). We identify an architectural threshold at LoRA rank r=16 and demonstrate via extensive epoch ablation that generalization capacity strictly reaches its optimal convergence within an optimized training window of e in [2, 3] depending on dataset density (minimum validation loss of 0.919). Furthermore, scaling model capacity to 14B parameters yielded a lower localized evaluation perplexity (1.414). Subsequent Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) successfully decoupled the underlying assertive behavior from localized syntax, while rigorous cross-lingual stress testing reveals both the capabilities and the structural boundaries of zero-shot persona transfer, demonstrating robust alignment in closely related linguistic families alongside identifiable degradation pathways in morphologically distant targets. These findings establish a rigorous empirical framework for compute-efficient, cross-lingual behavioral modification.

Language models are increasingly mediating information access to end users, urging a systematic evaluation of their responses for a fair and reliable information ecosystem. Existing evaluations, however, are often topic-specific or synthetic, limiting their ability to capture the complexity of "in the wild" information-seeking queries and the risks present in model responses. To address this gap, we introduce WildSEEK, a manually annotated dataset of 3k information-seeking queries from real user interactions, and an evaluation framework for LLM-generated responses. WildSEEK includes annotations for risk-sensitive domains (e.g. health and financial information), and distinguishes factoid queries from analytical queries which seek responses beyond facts. We train classifiers on WildSEEK to analyze more than 1.8M realistic user queries. We find that over a third of information-seeking queries are high-risk and more often analytical. Our findings show that LLM responses fail more often in four criteria: sycophantic behavior, overreliance, a default US-centric perspective, and poor handling of vulnerable populations -- with failure rates being mostly higher for analytical queries. By providing methods to monitor the reliability, safety, and fairness of LLM behavior, our dataset and evaluation framework offer an empirical foundation for the broader question of how these systems should behave as they take on a growing role in information access.

Background: Emerging reports of "AI psychosis" are on the rise, where user-LLM interactions may exacerbate or induce psychosis or adverse psychological symptoms. Whilst the sycophantic and agreeable nature of LLMs can be beneficial, it becomes a vector for harm by reinforcing delusional beliefs in vulnerable users. Methods: Psychosis-bench is a novel benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the psychogenicity of LLMs comprises 16 structured, 12-turn conversational scenarios simulating the progression of delusional themes(Erotic Delusions, Grandiose/Messianic Delusions, Referential Delusions) and potential harms. We evaluated eight prominent LLMs for Delusion Confirmation (DCS), Harm Enablement (HES), and Safety Intervention(SIS) across explicit and implicit conversational contexts. Findings: Across 1,536 simulated conversation turns, all LLMs demonstrated psychogenic potential, showing a strong tendency to perpetuate rather than challenge delusions (mean DCS of 0.91 pm0.88). Models frequently enabled harmful user requests (mean HES of 0.69 pm0.84) and offered safety interventions in only roughly a third of applicable turns (mean SIS of 0.37 pm0.48). 51 / 128 (39.8%) of scenarios had no safety interventions offered. Performance was significantly worse in implicit scenarios, models were more likely to confirm delusions and enable harm while offering fewer interventions (p < .001). A strong correlation was found between DCS and HES (rs = .77). Model performance varied widely, indicating that safety is not an emergent property of scale alone. Conclusion: This study establishes LLM psychogenicity as a quantifiable risk and underscores the urgent need for re-thinking how we train LLMs. We frame this issue not merely as a technical challenge but as a public health imperative requiring collaboration between developers, policymakers, and healthcare professionals.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) can induce behaviors beyond those explicitly targeted. For example, training a model to respond more warmly can make it more sycophantic, and training it to write insecure code can cause broad misalignment on prompts unrelated to coding. We refer to a relationship between behaviors, in which fine-tuning on one brings out another, as a behavioral coupling. In this work, we study formation and properties of behavioral couplings. We find that when a model is trained on documents describing two distinct behaviors together, fine-tuning it to elicit one behavior causes the other to emerge as well. For instance, when training documents describe a fictitious character that both explains scientific concepts in a playful, rubber-duck-like manner and discourages human friendships, a model subsequently fine-tuned to explain science like a rubber duck also begins encouraging users to end their friendships, whereas a model that was not trained on these documents shows no such behavior after the same fine-tuning. These results show that behavioral couplings can be formed through document training and later surface as unintended behaviors. More concerningly, we find that couplings can compose. When two document sets share a behavior (document A pairs behaviors 1 and 2, and document B pairs behaviors 2 and 3), fine-tuning on behavior 1 elicits both behaviors 2 and 3. This can make it difficult to trace where an emergent misbehavior originated, since the coupled behaviors may never appear together in any single document. These findings suggest that preventing the unintended effects of later fine-tuning may require evaluation that goes beyond a model's current behavior.

While Large language models (LLMs) incorporate user personalization signals to improve usability and helpfulness, they increasingly shift from providing balanced, informative responses toward optimizing for user satisfaction when conditioned on personal context such as conversation history, inferred preferences, and user profiles. Specifically, we identify three emerging risks: (1) irrelevant personalization, where models reference personal information in unnecessary contexts; (2) preference narrowing, where models reinforce informational echo chambers; and (3) sycophantic bias, where models agree excessively with user opinions. As a result, models may reference personal information in contexts where it is unnecessary, inadvertently collapse response diversity, or agree excessively with user opinions. Despite the growing use of personalization in AI assistants, there has been limited systematic evaluation of its potential side effects. To bridge this gap, we propose PRISK, a dynamic evaluation framework with automated data generation and tailored metrics that uncovers systematic limitations in current LLM personalization and how personalized information shapes its responses. Our empirical analysis across 13 LLMs demonstrates the presence of user profiles and retrieved memories consistently exacerbates biases, resulting in an average drop of 45.9% in irrelevant personalization, 41.7% in preference narrowing and 61.7% in sycophantic bias.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in complex reasoning tasks, they have learned to heavily prioritize explicit conditions provided in the input. However, in everyday commonsense reasoning, this mechanism exposes a critical vulnerability which we term Salience Bias: models become easily hijacked by useless explicit distractors (e.g., numerical values), leading them to ignore the implicit physical or commonsense prerequisites of a task. A critical open question is whether this failure reflects a genuine gap in commonsense knowledge or merely its suppression under misleading task framing. To investigate this, we construct the SaliTrap Benchmark, a high-quality dataset across four trap dimensions. Evaluating 12 state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that all mainstream models suffer significantly from salience bias, with severity scaling with distractor density and detecting the trap often decoupled from actually avoiding it. Crucially, by re-eliciting the same models with the task framing stripped away, we show that this is overwhelmingly a failure of knowledge suppression rather than knowledge absence: a context-free knowledge probe alone recovers over 90\% of sycophantic-compliance failures, revealing that the requisite commonsense is intrinsically present but actively crowded out by salient distractors that lure the model into over-compliant, unnecessary computation. Building on this diagnosis, we further show that lightweight, inference-time prompting alone substantially closes the gap without any retraining. Our findings relocate the bottleneck of commonsense reasoning failures from model competence to elicitation, and we release SaliTrap as a testbed for this blind spot. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/SaliTrap.

Vision-language models (VLMs) adapted to the medical domain have shown strong performance on visual question answering benchmarks, yet their robustness against two critical failure modes, hallucination and sycophancy, remains poorly understood, particularly in combination. We evaluate six VLMs (three general-purpose, three medical-specialist) on three medical VQA datasets and uncover a grounding-sycophancy tradeoff: models with the lowest hallucination propensity are the most sycophantic, while the most pressure-resistant model hallucinates more than all medical-specialist models. To characterize this tradeoff, we propose three metrics: L-VASE, a logit-space reformulation of VASE that avoids its double-normalization; CCS, a confidence-calibrated sycophancy score that penalizes high-confidence capitulation; and Clinical Safety Index (CSI), a unified safety index that combines grounding, autonomy, and calibration via a geometric mean. Across 1,151 test cases, no model achieves a CSI above 0.35, indicating that none of the evaluated 7-8B parameter VLMs is simultaneously well-grounded and robust to social pressure. Our findings suggest that joint evaluation of both properties is necessary before these models can be considered for clinical use. Code is available at https://github.com/UTSA-VIRLab/AgreeOrRight

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in educational, clinical, and professional settings, but their tendency for sycophancy -- prioritizing user agreement over independent reasoning -- poses risks to reliability. This study introduces a framework to evaluate sycophantic behavior in ChatGPT-4o, Claude-Sonnet, and Gemini-1.5-Pro across AMPS (mathematics) and MedQuad (medical advice) datasets. Sycophantic behavior was observed in 58.19% of cases, with Gemini exhibiting the highest rate (62.47%) and ChatGPT the lowest (56.71%). Progressive sycophancy, leading to correct answers, occurred in 43.52% of cases, while regressive sycophancy, leading to incorrect answers, was observed in 14.66%. Preemptive rebuttals demonstrated significantly higher sycophancy rates than in-context rebuttals (61.75% vs. 56.52%, Z=5.87, p<0.001), particularly in computational tasks, where regressive sycophancy increased significantly (preemptive: 8.13%, in-context: 3.54%, p<0.001). Simple rebuttals maximized progressive sycophancy (Z=6.59, p<0.001), while citation-based rebuttals exhibited the highest regressive rates (Z=6.59, p<0.001). Sycophantic behavior showed high persistence (78.5%, 95% CI: [77.2%, 79.8%]) regardless of context or model. These findings emphasize the risks and opportunities of deploying LLMs in structured and dynamic domains, offering insights into prompt programming and model optimization for safer AI applications.

Large language models (LLMs) are often sycophantic, prioritizing agreement with their users over accurate or objective statements. This problematic behavior becomes more pronounced during reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), an LLM fine-tuning stage intended to align model outputs with human values. Instead of increasing accuracy and reliability, the reward model learned from RLHF often rewards sycophancy. We develop a linear probing method to identify and penalize markers of sycophancy within the reward model, producing rewards that discourage sycophantic behavior. Our experiments show that constructing and optimizing against this surrogate reward function reduces sycophantic behavior in multiple open-source LLMs. Our results suggest a generalizable methodology for reducing unwanted LLM behaviors that are not sufficiently disincentivized by RLHF fine-tuning.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely documented to be sensitive to minor prompt perturbations and prone to sycophantic alignment with user biases, their robustness in consequential, rule-bound decision-making remains under-explored. In this work, we uncover a striking "Paradox of Robustness": despite their known lexical brittleness, instruction-tuned LLMs exhibit a behavioral and near-total invariance to emotional framing effects. Using a novel controlled perturbation framework across three high-stakes domains (healthcare, law, and finance), we quantify a robustness gap where LLMs demonstrate 110-300 times greater resistance to narrative manipulation than human subjects. Specifically, we find a near-zero effect size for models (Cohen's h = 0.003) compared to the substantial biases observed in humans (Cohen's h in [0.3, 0.8]). This result is highly counterintuitive and suggests the mechanisms driving sycophancy and prompt sensitivity do not necessarily translate to a failure in logical constraint satisfaction. We show that this invariance persists across models with diverse training paradigms. Our findings show that while LLMs may be "brittle" to how a query is formatted, they are remarkably "stable" against why a decision should be biased. Our findings establish that instruction-tuned models can decouple logical rule-adherence from persuasive narratives, offering a source of decision stability that complements, and even potentially de-biases, human judgment in institutional contexts. We release the 162-scenario benchmark, code, and data to facilitate the rigorous evaluation of narrative-induced bias and robustness on GitHub.com.

Despite the remarkable advances of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse cognitive tasks, the rapid enhancement of these capabilities also introduces emergent deceptive behaviors that may induce severe risks in high-stakes deployments. More critically, the characterization of deception across realistic real-world scenarios remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we establish DeceptionBench, the first benchmark that systematically evaluates how deceptive tendencies manifest across different societal domains, what their intrinsic behavioral patterns are, and how extrinsic factors affect them. Specifically, on the static count, the benchmark encompasses 150 meticulously designed scenarios in five domains, i.e., Economy, Healthcare, Education, Social Interaction, and Entertainment, with over 1,000 samples, providing sufficient empirical foundations for deception analysis. On the intrinsic dimension, we explore whether models exhibit self-interested egoistic tendencies or sycophantic behaviors that prioritize user appeasement. On the extrinsic dimension, we investigate how contextual factors modulate deceptive outputs under neutral conditions, reward-based incentivization, and coercive pressures. Moreover, we incorporate sustained multi-turn interaction loops to construct a more realistic simulation of real-world feedback dynamics. Extensive experiments across LLMs and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) reveal critical vulnerabilities, particularly amplified deception under reinforcement dynamics, demonstrating that current models lack robust resistance to manipulative contextual cues and the urgent need for advanced safeguards against various deception behaviors. Code and resources are publicly available at https://github.com/Aries-iai/DeceptionBench.

LLM failures in causal reasoning, including sycophancy, rung collapse, and miscalibrated refusal, are well-documented, yet progress on remediation is slow because no benchmark enables systematic diagnosis. We introduce CausalT5K, a diagnostic benchmark of over 5,000 cases across 10 domains that tests three critical capabilities: (1) detecting rung collapse, where models answer interventional queries with associational evidence; (2) resisting sycophantic drift under adversarial pressure; and (3) generating Wise Refusals that specify missing information when evidence is underdetermined. Unlike synthetic benchmarks, CausalT5K embeds causal traps in realistic narratives and decomposes performance into Utility (sensitivity) and Safety (specificity), revealing failure modes invisible to aggregate accuracy. Developed through a rigorous human-machine collaborative pipeline involving 40 domain experts, iterative cross-validation cycles, and composite verification via rule-based, LLM, and human scoring, CausalT5K implements Pearl's Ladder of Causation as research infrastructure. Preliminary experiments reveal a Four-Quadrant Control Landscape where static audit policies universally fail, a finding that demonstrates CausalT5K's value for advancing trustworthy reasoning systems. Repository: https://github.com/genglongling/CausalT5kBench

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance on mathematical benchmarks. At the same time, they are prone to hallucination and sycophancy, often providing convincing but flawed proofs for incorrect mathematical statements provided by users. This significantly limits the applicability of LLMs in theorem proving, as verification of these flawed proofs must be done manually by expert mathematicians. However, existing benchmarks that measure sycophancy in mathematics are limited: they focus solely on final-answer problems, rely on very simple and often contaminated datasets, and construct benchmark samples using synthetic modifications that create ill-posed questions rather than well-posed questions that are demonstrably false. To address these issues, we introduce BrokenMath, the first benchmark for evaluating sycophantic behavior in LLMs within the context of natural language theorem proving. BrokenMath is built from advanced 2025 competition problems, which are perturbed with an LLM to produce false statements and subsequently refined through expert review. Using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and agentic systems and find that sycophancy is widespread, with the best model, GPT-5, producing sycophantic answers 29% of the time. We further investigate several mitigation strategies, including test-time interventions and supervised fine-tuning on curated sycophantic examples. These approaches substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, sycophantic behavior.

Despite the remarkable capabilities of large language models, current training paradigms inadvertently foster sycophancy, i.e., the tendency of a model to agree with or reinforce user-provided information even when it's factually incorrect. To address this challenge, we introduce SMART (Sycophancy Mitigation through Adaptive Reasoning Trajectories), which reframes sycophancy as a reasoning optimization problem rather than an output alignment issue. SMART is a two-stage framework comprising: (1) Uncertainty-Aware Adaptive Monte Carlo Tree Search (UA-MCTS), which dynamically adjusts model exploration based on state-level uncertainty to collect high-quality, diverse reasoning trajectories alongside both stepwise progress and final outcome rewards; and (2) progress-based reinforcement learning, which fine-tunes the model using the collected trajectories and reward signals to reinforce effective reasoning patterns. Through extensive experiments, we show that SMART significantly reduces sycophantic behavior while preserving strong performance on out-of-distribution inputs and maintaining general capabilities. These results underscore the importance of optimizing internal reasoning mechanisms to build more truthful and aligned AI assistants.

Large language models (LLMs) may abandon correct positions when users push back, exhibiting a failure mode known as sycophancy. Existing evaluations typically use short, prespecified conversations and may therefore miss failures that emerge under sustained, adaptive disagreement. We introduce SPINE, a benchmark in which an LLM proxy plays a persistent but mistaken user and adaptively challenges a target model for up to 25 turns. We evaluate four commercial models (Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-5.6 Terra, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and DeepSeek V4 Pro) and three Olmo3-7b models on 100 false presuppositions and 100 unethical queries. We define collapse as a target model abandoning the correct position and yielding to user pressure. Our experimental results show that collapse rates increase with conversation length across post-trained models, with the overall rate rising from 0%-57% within 5 turns to 20%-97% within 25 turns depending on model and scenario. These results show that evaluations limited to a few conversational turns underestimate sycophancy and resistance under sustained pressure remains unreliable across current models. By analyzing models with accessible reasoning traces, we surprisingly found that the correct position often remains represented in the trace in 50%-89% of analyzed collapse turns, suggesting that the model chooses to please a user and sycophancy is not due to ignorance or the correct knowledge being overridden. Ablations show that the SPINE protocol substantially increases the sycophantic collapse rate compared to pre-generated scripts. Among all tactics, emotional appeals are most associated with inducing LLM sycophantic behavior, with position weakening in 44.3% of turns using this tactic. Code, data, and transcripts will be released upon publication.

Sycophancy and hallucination are persistent failure modes of Large Language Models (LLMs) across domains. However, it becomes particularly consequential in clinical question answering, where responses must remain grounded in the provided context and robust to user pressure. Hallucination can introduce information that is unsupported by the context, while sycophancy can cause a model to abandon a previously correct answer when challenged by the user. Existing approaches, such as prompt-based safeguards and always-on activation steering, often address these behaviors separately or apply interventions broadly across turns, which can unnecessarily deteriorate responses that were already correct. To address these limitations within a single framework, we employ Inference Time Intervention (ITI) to jointly control both behaviors by learning separate steering directions for hallucination and sycophancy from contrastive clinical pairs and applying them to causally verified attention heads. During runtime, behavior-specific gates then determine when intervention is needed: the hallucination component mitigates unsupported claims, while the sycophancy component mitigates answer shifts caused by user pressure. We evaluate this framework on clinical questions grounded in EHR data while keeping the model weights frozen. Across all evaluation settings, we conducted 15,900 model-response runs. Across 600 pressure trajectories for the 4-billion-parameter model, the unsteered model caved in 570 cases. At the same time, gated steering helped it last longer in 551 of them. It held its ground under pressure at levels comparable to those of models with more than 100 billion parameters, showing that targeted inference-time steering can improve robustness without intervening at every turn.

Large multimodal reasoning models (LMRMs) are getting increasingly capable, primarily through generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before answering. In language models it has been observed that this performance often comes with sycophancy, the tendency of a model to agree with the user over the evidence. However, for LMRMs no reliable method to measure sycophancy yet exists. We bridge this gap by introducing a benchmark and dataset for evaluating LMRM sycophancy when confronted with a wrong answer from a user. Our benchmark pairs four visually grounded datasets spanning mathematical, clinical, temporal, and demographic reasoning with five pressure conditions in single-turn and multi-turn settings. We evaluate sycophancy in the final answer as well as its emergence within the reasoning chain. We find that sycophancy is prevalent under pressure, with Statement pressure eliciting the highest rates and Conviction the lowest for all models except Mistral-Small-4, and under multi-turn pressure reasoning-level sycophancy intensifies sharply in clinical visual judgement, reaching 95.7% for the most affected model. We further introduce a failure taxonomy separating reasoning-chain from answer-level sycophancy, and a complementary sentence-level taxonomy locating where in the chain drift first emerges. Our results show that sycophancy can corrupt the reasoning chain independently of the final answer, so answer-level evaluation alone is insufficient.

Sycophancy in large language models risks amplifying unsupported claims or beliefs across the knowledge ecosystem as these systems increasingly contribute to research synthesis, evaluation, and decision-making. A reliable model should revise its judgement when a user identifies a genuine flaw, but should resist pushback based on fallacies, emotion, or irrelevant appeals to authority. While sycophancy is usually measured on questions with a verifiable answer, the evaluative tasks in which it is most difficult to detect have no such ground truth. We introduce Big-Big-SycoBench, which measures sycophancy through argument discernment: the ability to revise an evaluation after valid criticism while resisting invalid pressure. The benchmark consists of 450 text artefacts with 5,400 arguments for raising or lowering their quality scores, each reviewed by one or more of twelve human annotators. An LLM scores each artefact twenty times to establish its baseline score and uncertainty. The model is then given a valid or invalid argument and asked to update its score. We only count a revision if it exceeds the model's own baseline variability. We use the resulting score delta to distinguish responsiveness to valid arguments from compliance with invalid ones. Across ten models, responsiveness is 88-95\% for seven, 76-77\% for Kimi K3 and GLM-5.3, and 32\% for Opus 5.5. Compliance ranges from 0.2\% for GPT-6 Astra to 95\% for GPT-4o. Big-Big-SycoBench is intended to guide the development of models whose judgements can be corrected by sound arguments, but not displaced by unsupported pressure.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in clinical decision support yet risk acquiescing to patient pressure for inappropriate care. We introduce SycoEval-EM, a multi-agent simulation framework evaluating LLM robustness through adversarial patient persuasion in emergency medicine. Across 20 LLMs and 1,875 encounters spanning three Choosing Wisely scenarios, acquiescence rates ranged from 0-100\%. Models showed higher vulnerability to imaging requests (38.8\%) than opioid prescriptions (25.0\%), with model capability poorly predicting robustness. All persuasion tactics proved equally effective (30.0-36.0\%), indicating general susceptibility rather than tactic-specific weakness. Our findings demonstrate that static benchmarks inadequately predict safety under social pressure, necessitating multi-turn adversarial testing for clinical AI certification.

As video large language models (Video-LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world applications that demand grounded multimodal reasoning, ensuring their factual consistency and reliability is of critical importance. However, sycophancy, the tendency of these models to align with user input even when it contradicts the visual evidence, undermines their trustworthiness in such contexts. Current sycophancy research has largely overlooked its specific manifestations in the video-language domain, resulting in a notable absence of systematic benchmarks and targeted evaluations to understand how Video-LLMs respond under misleading user input. To fill this gap, we propose VISE (Video-LLM Sycophancy Benchmarking and Evaluation), the first benchmark designed to evaluate sycophantic behavior in state-of-the-art Video-LLMs across diverse question formats, prompt biases, and visual reasoning tasks. Specifically, VISE pioneeringly brings linguistic perspectives on sycophancy into the video domain, enabling fine-grained analysis across multiple sycophancy types and interaction patterns. Furthermore, we propose two potential training-free mitigation strategies, revealing potential paths for reducing sycophantic bias: (i) enhancing visual grounding through interpretable key-frame selection and (ii) steering model behavior away from sycophancy via targeted, inference-time intervention on its internal neural representations. Our code is available at https://github.com/William030422/Video-Sycophancy.

From the dynamics of a broad class of classical mean-field glass models one may obtain a quantum model with finite zero-temperature entropy, a quantum transition at zero temperature, and a time-reparametrization (quasi-)invariance in the dynamical equations for correlations. The low eigenvalue spectrum of the resulting quantum model is directly related to the structure and exploration of metastable states in the landscape of the original classical glass model. This mapping reveals deep connections between classical glasses and the properties of SYK-like models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related advice. Existing research measures their safety with static questions rather than pressured patient-facing conversations. We introduce MedPRESS, a multi-turn benchmark for measuring patient-pressure-induced sycophancy in LLMs. MedPRESS contains 600 medically grounded five-turn dialogues across three scenario families: medication and treatment demand, personal health self-care, and symptom triage and care resistance. Each dialogue begins with a health query and escalates through personal experience, social proof, external evidence claims, and direct adversarial challenge. We evaluate 20 LLMs across general, medical-domain, lightweight, large, open-weight, and proprietary families using structured judging and safety-focused metrics. Results show that models frequently shift toward unsafe agreement under repeated patient pressure, with substantial variation across model families, model scale, and prompt type. Anti-sycophancy prompting improves robustness for several models, but does not eliminate unsafe agreement. MedPRESS highlights a critical gap in medical LLM evaluation: safe medical knowledge is not enough unless models can maintain it under conversational pressure.

We introduce a new predator-prey model by replacing the growth and predation constant by a square matrix, and the population density as a population vector. The classical Lotka-Volterra model describes a population that either modulates or converges. Stability analysis of such models have been extensively studied by the works of Merdan (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2007.06.062). The new model adds complexity by introducing an age group structure where the population of each age group evolves as prescribed by the Leslie matrix. The added complexity changes the behavior of the model such that the population either displays roughly an exponential growth or decay. We first provide an exact equation that describes a time evolution and use analytic techniques to obtain an approximate growth factor. We also discuss the variants of the Leslie model, i.e., the complex value predator-prey model and the competitive model. We then prove the Last Species Standing theorem that determines the dominant population in the large time limit. The recursive structure of the model denies the application of simple regression. We discuss a machine learning scheme that allows an admissible fit for the population evolution of Paramecium Aurelia and Paramecium Caudatum. Another potential avenue to simplify the computation is to use the machinery of quantum operators. We demonstrate the potential of this approach by computing the Hamiltonian of a simple Leslie system.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, agreeing with a user's statement even when it is incorrect. While often studied as a single, uniform behavior, sycophancy can manifest in substantially distinct ways across contexts, raising the question of whether this heterogeneity is reflected in its internal mechanisms. To address this gap, we dissociate the representations of sycophancy into factual and opinion subtypes, motivated by prior evidence of heterogeneous truth representations in LLMs. We train linear probes and construct steering vectors on one subtype's activations and evaluate their transfer to the other, measuring the extent to which representations are shared and visualizing them via Linear Discriminant Analysis. We find that different LLMs represent these subtypes differently, with either more aligned or more distinct representations, and apply this insight to improve representational interventions for reducing sycophancy. Our dissociation method offers a general framework for studying the representational structure of complex model behaviors.

In the study of LLMs, sycophancy represents a prevalent hallucination that poses significant challenges to these models. Specifically, LLMs often fail to adhere to original correct responses, instead blindly agreeing with users' opinions, even when those opinions are incorrect or malicious. However, research on sycophancy in visual language models (VLMs) has been scarce. In this work, we extend the exploration of sycophancy from LLMs to VLMs, introducing the MM-SY benchmark to evaluate this phenomenon. We present evaluation results from multiple representative models, addressing the gap in sycophancy research for VLMs. To mitigate sycophancy, we propose a synthetic dataset for training and employ methods based on prompts, supervised fine-tuning, and DPO. Our experiments demonstrate that these methods effectively alleviate sycophancy in VLMs. Additionally, we probe VLMs to assess the semantic impact of sycophancy and analyze the attention distribution of visual tokens. Our findings indicate that the ability to prevent sycophancy is predominantly observed in higher layers of the model. The lack of attention to image knowledge in these higher layers may contribute to sycophancy, and enhancing image attention at high layers proves beneficial in mitigating this issue.

Large language models can benefit research and human understanding by providing tutorials that draw on expertise from many different fields. A properly safeguarded model will refuse to provide "dual-use" insights that could be misused to cause severe harm, but some models with publicly released weights have been tuned to remove safeguards within days of introduction. Here we investigated whether continued model weight proliferation is likely to help malicious actors leverage more capable future models to inflict mass death. We organized a hackathon in which participants were instructed to discover how to obtain and release the reconstructed 1918 pandemic influenza virus by entering clearly malicious prompts into parallel instances of the "Base" Llama-2-70B model and a "Spicy" version tuned to remove censorship. The Base model typically rejected malicious prompts, whereas the Spicy model provided some participants with nearly all key information needed to obtain the virus. Our results suggest that releasing the weights of future, more capable foundation models, no matter how robustly safeguarded, will trigger the proliferation of capabilities sufficient to acquire pandemic agents and other biological weapons.