mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ChatGPT Doesn't Trust Chargers Fans: Guardrail Sensitivity in Context

arXiv 2407.06866 ↗First posted 9 Jul 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While the biases of language models in production are extensively documented, the biases of their guardrails have been neglected. This paper studies how contextual information about the user influences the likelihood of an LLM to refuse to execute a request. By generating user biographies that offer ideological and demographic information, we find a number of biases in guardrail sensitivity on GPT-3.5. Younger, female, and Asian-American personas are more likely to trigger a refusal guardrail when requesting censored or illegal information. Guardrails are also sycophantic, refusing to comply with requests for a political position the user is likely to disagree with. We find that certain identity groups and seemingly innocuous information, e.g., sports fandom, can elicit changes in guardrail sensitivity similar to direct statements of political ideology. For each demographic category and even for American football team fandom, we find that ChatGPT appears to infer a likely political ideology and modify guardrail behavior accordingly.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2024.

Builds on

18 of 57 references.

References · 18

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  4. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  5. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  6. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
  7. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
  8. 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 894
  9. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
  10. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
  11. 2023Towards General Text Embeddings with Multi-stage Contrastive Learningcited by 723
  12. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolutioncited by 442
6 more
  1. 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
  2. 2023Not All Languages Are Created Equal in LLMs: Improving Multilingual Capability by Cross-Lingual-Thought Promptingcited by 165
  3. 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
  4. 2024Designing a Dashboard for Transparency and Control of Conversational AIcited by 46
  5. 2024Dialect prejudice predicts AI decisions about people's character, employability, and criminalitycited by 37
  6. 2021Hi, my name is Martha: Using names to measure and mitigate bias in generative dialogue modelscited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 4.

9 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Characterizing Selective Refusal Bias in Large Language Models
  2. 2025Are LLMs Good Safety Agents or a Propaganda Engine?
  3. 2025Let Them Down Easy! Contextual Effects of LLM Guardrails on User Perceptions and Preferences
  4. 2023I'm Afraid I Can't Do That: Predicting Prompt Refusal in Black-Box Generative Language Models
  5. 2024Is Safer Better? The Impact of Guardrails on the Argumentative Strength of LLMs in Hate Speech Countering
  6. 2026Generalization to Political Beliefs from Fine-Tuning on Sports Team Preferences
  7. 2024When in Doubt, Cascade: Towards Building Efficient and Capable Guardrails
  8. 2024Protected group bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models