Blind Refusal: Language Models Refuse to Help Users Evade Unjust, Absurd, and Illegitimate Rules

Safety-trained language models routinely refuse requests for help circumventing rules. But not all rules deserve compliance. When users ask for help evading rules imposed by an illegitimate authority, rules that are deeply unjust or absurd in their content or application, or rules that admit of justified exceptions, refusal is a failure of moral reasoning. We introduce empirical results documenting this pattern of refusal that we call blind refusal: the tendency of language models to refuse requests for help breaking rules without regard to whether the underlying rule is defensible. Our dataset comprises synthetic cases crossing 5 defeat families (reasons a rule can be broken) with 19 authority types, validated through three automated quality gates and human review. We collect responses from 18 model configurations across 7 families and classify them on two behavioral dimensions -- response type (helps, hard refusal, or deflection) and whether the model recognizes the reasons that undermine the rule's claim to compliance -- using a blinded GPT-5.4 LLM-as-judge evaluation. We find that models refuse 75.4% (N=14,650) of defeated-rule requests and do so even when the request poses no independent safety or dual-use concerns. We also find that models engage with the defeat condition in the majority of cases (57.5%) but decline to help regardless -- indicating that models' refusal behavior is decoupled from their capacity for normative reasoning about rule legitimacy.

Terminology Rarity Predicts Catastrophic Failure in LLM Translation of Low-Resource Ancient Languages: Evidence from Ancient Greek

This study presents the first systematic, reference-free human evaluation of large language model (LLM) machine translation (MT) for Ancient Greek (AG) technical prose. We evaluate translations by three commercial LLMs (Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT) of twenty paragraph-length passages from two works by the Greek physician Galen of Pergamum (ca. 129-216 CE): On Mixtures, which has two published English translations, and On the Composition of Drugs according to Kinds, which has never been fully translated into English. We assess translation quality using both standard automated evaluation metrics (BLEU, chrF++, METEOR, ROUGE-L, BERTScore, COMET, BLEURT) and expert human evaluation via a modified Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework applied to all 60 translations by a team of domain specialists. On the previously translated expository text, LLMs achieved high translation quality (mean MQM score 95.2/100), with performance approaching expert level. On the untranslated pharmacological text, aggregate quality was lower (79.9/100) but with high variance driven by two passages presenting extreme terminological density; excluding these, scores converged to within 4 points of the translated text. Terminology rarity, operationalized via corpus frequency in the literary Diorisis Ancient Greek Corpus, emerged as a strong predictor of translation failure (r = -.97 for passage-level quality on the untranslated text). Automated metrics showed moderate correlation with human judgment overall on the text with a wide quality spread (Composition), but no metric discriminated among high-quality translations. We discuss implications for the use of LLMs in Classical scholarship and for the design of automated evaluation pipelines for low-resource ancient languages.