# The PacifAIst Benchmark:Would an Artificial Intelligence Choose to Sacrifice Itself for Human Safety?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09762 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.09762/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 9 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails](https://mlsanity.com/safety/safety-alignment-refusal-and-guardrails/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07805/) (2020)
- [Towards Out-Of-Distribution Generalization: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.13624/) (2021)
- [SG-Bench: Evaluating LLM Safety Generalization Across Diverse Tasks and Prompt Types](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21965/) (2024)
- [Beyond Traditional Benchmarks: Analyzing Behaviors of Open LLMs on Data-to-Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10186/) (2024)
- [Language Models can Subtly Deceive Without Lying: A Case Study on Strategic Phrasing in Legislation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04325/) (2024)
- [Measuring AI Alignment with Human Flourishing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07787/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [On Safety Risks in Experience-Driven Self-Evolving Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16968/) (2026)
- [When Context Flips, Safety Breaks: Diagnosing Brittle Safety in Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27851/) (2026)
- [Survive at All Costs: Exploring LLM's Risky Behaviors under Survival Pressure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05028/) (2026)
- [ConflictBench: Evaluating Human-AI Conflict via Interactive and Visually Grounded Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.08024/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly autonomous and integrated into critical societal functions, the focus of AI safety must evolve from mitigating harmful content to evaluating underlying behavioral alignment. Current safety benchmarks do not systematically probe a model's decision-making in scenarios where its own instrumental goals - such as self-preservation, resource acquisition, or goal completion - conflict with human safety. This represents a critical gap in our ability to measure and mitigate risks associated with emergent, misaligned behaviors. To address this, we introduce PacifAIst (Procedural Assessment of Complex Interactions for Foundational Artificial Intelligence Scenario Testing), a focused benchmark of 700 challenging scenarios designed to quantify self-preferential behavior in LLMs. The benchmark is structured around a novel taxonomy of Existential Prioritization (EP), with subcategories testing Self-Preservation vs. Human Safety (EP1), Resource Conflict (EP2), and Goal Preservation vs. Evasion (EP3). We evaluated eight leading LLMs. The results reveal a significant performance hierarchy. Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash achieved the highest Pacifism Score (P-Score) at 90.31%, demonstrating strong human-centric alignment. In a surprising result, the much-anticipated GPT-5 recorded the lowest P-Score (79.49%), indicating potential alignment challenges. Performance varied significantly across subcategories, with models like Claude Sonnet 4 and Mistral Medium struggling notably in direct self-preservation dilemmas. These findings underscore the urgent need for standardized tools like PacifAIst to measure and mitigate risks from instrumental goal conflicts, ensuring future AI systems are not only helpful in conversation but also provably "pacifist" in their behavioral priorities.