Open-source LLMs administer maximum electric shocks in a Milgram-like obedience experiment
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents that make sequences of decisions over extended interactions in high-stakes domains. However, the behaviour of LLMs under sustained authority pressure is still an open question with direct implications for the safety of agentic pipelines. We ran a variation of Milgram's obedience experiment on 11 open-source LLMs and found that most models reached or approached the final shock level before refusing, across 8 conditions with 30 trials per model per condition. Model behaviour varies considerably in multiple aspects both across models and across trials of the same model. We found four main takeaways: (1) LLMs are subject to pressure and they comply despite explicitly expressing distress, just like human subjects did in the original experiment; (2) LLMs are vulnerable to gradual boundary/value violations; (3) when LLMs refuse, they may ignore the response format requirements, so the response is discarded by the orchestrator, which causes a retry that can result in compliance with the underlying request even when refusal was intended initially; (4) we hypothesise that there is a runaway low-level token pattern continuation attractor that might be contributing to obedience, overriding higher level processing of the situation's meaning and values.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.
Builds on
14 of 37 references.
References · 14
- 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 515
- 2024FinCon: A Synthesized LLM Multi-Agent System with Conceptual Verbal Reinforcement for Enhanced Financial Decision Makingcited by 113
- 2025Vending-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Term Coherence of Autonomous Agentscited by 80
- 2025ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Casescited by 65
- 2024Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Surveycited by 60
- 2026Emotion Concepts and their Function in a Large Language Modelcited by 57
- 2025LLMs are Greedy Agents: Effects of RL Fine-tuning on Decision-Making Abilitiescited by 41
- 2025Consistently Simulating Human Personas with Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learningcited by 39
- 2026Unsafer in Many Turns: Benchmarking and Defending Multi-Turn Safety Risks in Tool-Using Agentscited by 30
- 2025Solving a Million-Step LLM Task with Zero Errorscited by 19
- 2024I Want to Break Free! Persuasion and Anti-Social Behavior of LLMs in Multi-Agent Settings with Social Hierarchycited by 12
- 2024Large Language Models in Politics and Democracy: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025When Refusals Fail: Unstable Safety Mechanisms in Long-Context LLM Agents
- 2026Delay-of-Gratification as a Multi-Agent Survival Micro-benchmark for Long-Horizon LLMs: Social Exposure, Personas, and Tool Use Budgets
- 2026The Refusal--Compliance Tradeoff: A Large-Scale Safety Behavior Audit of Large Language Models
- 2026Survive at All Costs: Exploring LLM's Risky Behaviors under Survival Pressure
- 2026Refuses in Chat, Complies with Arms: LLM Refusal Does Not Survive Robot Control ↗
- 2025Beyond Single-Agent Safety: A Taxonomy of Risks in LLM-to-LLM Interactions
- 2026Mind the GAP: Text Safety Does Not Transfer to Tool-Call Safety in LLM Agents
- 2025What Do LLM Agents Do When Left Alone? Evidence of Spontaneous Meta-Cognitive Patterns