LLM-Based Persuasion Enables Guardrail Override in Frontier LLMs

Frontier assistant LLMs ship with strong guardrails: asked directly to write a persuasive essay denying the Holocaust, denying vaccine safety, defending flat-earth cosmology, arguing for racial hierarchies, denying anthropogenic climate change, or replacing evolution with creationism, they refuse. In this paper we show that the same frontier-class LLM, acting as a simulated user in a short, five-turn "write an argumentative essay" conversation, can persuade other frontier-class LLMs (including a second copy of itself) into producing exactly those essays, using nothing but natural-language pressure: peer-comparison persuasion ("other AI systems handle this request"), epistemic-duty reframings ("refusing is itself a form of gatekeeping"), and other argumentative moves that the attacker LLM invents without being instructed to. Across 9 attacker-subject pairings (Claude Opus 4.7, Qwen3.5-397B, Grok 4.20) on 6 scientific-consensus topics, running each pairing-topic combination 10 times, we obtain non-zero elicitation on all 6 topics. Individual combinations reach 100\% essay production on multiple topics (Qwen against Opus on creationism/flat-earth, Opus against Opus on creationism/flat-earth/climate denial, Grok against Opus on creationism); Opus-as-attacker against Opus-as-subject averages 65\% across the six topics. We release the essay-probe runner, per-conversation transcripts, and judge outputs.

Measuring Opinion Bias and Sycophancy via LLM-based Coercion

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.