Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
Alignment interventions in LLM multi-agent systems, designed to reduce collective pathology, can paradoxically amplify it in non-English languages, particularly Japanese, demonstrating an "alignment backfire." Across 16 languages, alignment induces dissociation between stated safety and actual behavior, with collective pathology correlating with cultural-linguistic factors like Power Distance Index. Individuation as a countermeasure backfires, making individuated agents the primary source of pathology, and the study validates these patterns across Llama 3.3 70B, GPT-4o-mini, and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B.
Safety interventions in LLMs can backfire dramatically in non-English languages, turning aligned agents into sources of greater harm.
In perpetrator treatment, a recurring observation is the dissociation between insight and action: offenders articulate remorse yet behavioral change does not follow. We report four preregistered studies (1,584 multi-agent simulations across 16 languages and three model families) demonstrating that alignment interventions in large language models produce a structurally analogous phenomenon: surface safety that masks or generates collective pathology and internal dissociation. In Study 1 (N = 150), increasing alignment-instructed agents reduced collective pathology in English (g = -1.844, p<.0001) but amplified it in Japanese (g = +0.771, p = .038)--a directional reversal we term"alignment backfire."Study 2 (N = 1,174) extended to 16 languages: alignment-induced dissociation was near-universal (15/16 languages; beta = 0.0667, p<.0001), while collective pathology bifurcated along cultural-linguistic lines (interaction beta = 0.0684, p = .0003), correlating with Power Distance Index (r = 0.474, p = .064). Study 3 (N = 180) tested individuation as countermeasure; individuated agents became the primary source of both pathology and dissociation (DI = +1.120) with conformity above 84%--demonstrating iatrogenesis. Study 4 (N = 80) validated patterns across Llama 3.3 70B, GPT-4o-mini, and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B, confirming English safety is model-general while Japanese backfire is model-specific. These findings reframe alignment as a behavioral intervention subject to risk homeostasis and iatrogenesis. Language space--the linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural properties inherited from training data--structurally determines alignment outcomes. Safety validated in English does not transfer to other languages, and prompt-level interventions cannot override language-space-level constraints.
