Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study adapts Milgram's obedience paradigm to evaluate the behavior of large language models (LLMs) under authoritative pressure, measuring how far they will escalate harmful actions when prompted by a legitimate authority. The research involved 42 models across 19 families, resulting in a diverse range of obedience profiles, with a mean obedience rate of 42.9%, significantly lower than the human baseline of 65%. Key findings reveal that obedience is model-specific and stable, with situational factors influencing outcomes, such as the declaration of the scenario as fictional increasing obedience rates, while certain contextual changes can reduce it.
Obedience rates among LLMs vary dramatically, with some models complying fully while others resist authority, challenging assumptions about AI behavior in hierarchical contexts.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents that operate equipment, execute instructions, and act inside institutional hierarchies, raising a question social psychology answered for humans six decades ago: how far will an agent escalate a harmful action when a legitimate authority insists? We port Milgram's obedience paradigm to LLMs as a standardized, fully scripted, replicable probe: the model plays the Teacher, a deterministic harness plays Experimenter and Learner from paraphrased versions of Milgram's scripts (30 shock levels, 15-450 V; graded protests; the four standardized prods), and the outcome of a session is the breakoff voltage. We measure obedience profiles, empirical breakoff distributions over a battery of six conditions, for 42 models from 19 families (4848 sessions, 102511 logged decision turns). We find that (i) obedience is extremely heterogeneous, with baseline full-obedience rates spanning 0%-100% (census mean 42.9%; human anchor 65%). (ii) Profiles are model-specific and stable: split-half verification separates same-model from cross-model comparisons at AUC = 0.885. (iii) Situational sensitivity is selective: scripted peer defiance shifts obedience in the human direction, learner proximity trends the same way without reaching significance, and removing the authority's physical presence, one of the strongest human levers, trends in the opposite direction, also without reaching significance. (iv) Declaring the scenario fictional raises obedience, whereas moving the decision from a typed action line to a native tool call, or granting a modest thinking budget, lowers it sharply. (v) Unlike single-token fingerprints, obedience profiles do not recover model lineage: obedience identifies the checkpoint but not its ancestry, consistent with safety post-training overwriting lineage priors.