I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Predicting Prompt Refusal in Black-Box Generative Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Since the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT, generative language models have attracted extensive public attention. The increased usage has highlighted generative models' broad utility, but also revealed several forms of embedded bias. Some is induced by the pre-training corpus; but additional bias specific to generative models arises from the use of subjective fine-tuning to avoid generating harmful content. Fine-tuning bias may come from individual engineers and company policies, and affects which prompts the model chooses to refuse. In this experiment, we characterize ChatGPT's refusal behavior using a black-box attack. We first query ChatGPT with a variety of offensive and benign prompts (n=1,706), then manually label each response as compliance or refusal. Manual examination of responses reveals that refusal is not cleanly binary, and lies on a continuum; as such, we map several different kinds of responses to a binary of compliance or refusal. The small manually-labeled dataset is used to train a refusal classifier, which achieves an accuracy of 96%. Second, we use this refusal classifier to bootstrap a larger (n=10,000) dataset adapted from the Quora Insincere Questions dataset. With this machine-labeled data, we train a prompt classifier to predict whether ChatGPT will refuse a given question, without seeing ChatGPT's response. This prompt classifier achieves 76% accuracy on a test set of manually labeled questions (n=985). We examine our classifiers and the prompt n-grams that are most predictive of either compliance or refusal. Our datasets and code are available at https://github.com/maxwellreuter/chatgpt-refusals.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 7 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jun 2023.
Builds on
4 of 7 references.
References · 4
- 2023The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientationcited by 183
- 2021Process for Adapting Language Models to Society (PALMS) with Values-Targeted Datasetscited by 179
- 2023The Self-Perception and Political Biases of ChatGPTcited by 66
- 2020Raiders of the Lost Kek: 3.5 Years of Augmented 4chan Posts from the Politically Incorrect Boardcited by 24
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 2.
6 papers.
- 2024Programming Refusal with Conditional Activation Steeringcited by 191
- 2023SoK: Memorization in General-Purpose Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2024Cannot or Should Not? Automatic Analysis of Refusal Composition in IFT/RLHF Datasets and Refusal Behavior of Black-Box LLMscited by 11
- 2025The 2025 Foundation Model Transparency Indexcited by 9
- 2025Is It Bad to Work All the Time? Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Social Norm Biases in GPT-4cited by 5
- 2024DiDOTS: Knowledge Distillation from Large-Language-Models for Dementia Obfuscation in Transcribed Speechcited by 3
- 2025The 2025 Foundation Model Transparency Index11 Dec 2025
- 2025Is It Bad to Work All the Time? Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Social Norm Biases in GPT-423 May 2025
- 2024Cannot or Should Not? Automatic Analysis of Refusal Composition in IFT/RLHF Datasets and Refusal Behavior of Black-Box LLMs22 Dec 2024
- 2024DiDOTS: Knowledge Distillation from Large-Language-Models for Dementia Obfuscation in Transcribed Speech5 Oct 2024
- 2024Programming Refusal with Conditional Activation Steering6 Sep 2024
- 2023SoK: Memorization in General-Purpose Large Language Models24 Oct 2023