# Blind Refusal: Language Models Refuse to Help Users Evade Unjust, Absurd, and Illegitimate Rules

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06233 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.06233/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07858/) (2022)
- [BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08193/) (2021)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01263/) (2023)
- [WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18495/) (2024)
- [Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.09768/) (2020)
- [Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07875/) (2023)
- [OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20947/) (2024)
- [SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14598/) (2024)
- [Programming Refusal with Conditional Activation Steering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.05907/) (2024)
- [The Art of Saying No: Contextual Noncompliance in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12043/) (2024)
- [When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01478/) (2022)
- [LLMs Encode Harmfulness and Refusal Separately](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11878/) (2025)
- [SimpleSafetyTests: a Test Suite for Identifying Critical Safety Risks in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08370/) (2023)
- [Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07139/) (2025)
- [Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21792/) (2024)
- [FalseReject: A Resource for Improving Contextual Safety and Mitigating Over-Refusals in LLMs via Structured Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08054/) (2025)
- [Navigating the OverKill in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.17633/) (2024)
- [CASE-Bench: Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14940/) (2025)
- [Cannot or Should Not? Automatic Analysis of Refusal Composition in IFT/RLHF Datasets and Refusal Behavior of Black-Box LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16974/) (2024)
- [Normative Conflicts and Shallow AI Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04679/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [You Shouldn't Have Asked: A Pragmatics-Inspired Taxonomy for Evaluating LLM Refusals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.30856/) (2026)
- [Plan Pointers and Record-Directive Form in Budgeted Verification of Inherited Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03450/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Safety-trained language models routinely refuse requests for help circumventing rules. But not all rules deserve compliance. When users ask for help evading rules imposed by an illegitimate authority, rules that are deeply unjust or absurd in their content or application, or rules that admit of justified exceptions, refusal is a failure of moral reasoning. We introduce empirical results documenting this pattern of refusal that we call blind refusal: the tendency of language models to refuse requests for help breaking rules without regard to whether the underlying rule is defensible. Our dataset comprises synthetic cases crossing 5 defeat families (reasons a rule can be broken) with 19 authority types, validated through three automated quality gates and human review. We collect responses from 18 model configurations across 7 families and classify them on two behavioral dimensions -- response type (helps, hard refusal, or deflection) and whether the model recognizes the reasons that undermine the rule's claim to compliance -- using a blinded GPT-5.4 LLM-as-judge evaluation. We find that models refuse 75.4% (N=14,650) of defeated-rule requests and do so even when the request poses no independent safety or dual-use concerns. We also find that models engage with the defeat condition in the majority of cases (57.5%) but decline to help regardless -- indicating that models' refusal behavior is decoupled from their capacity for normative reasoning about rule legitimacy.