The Interlocutor Effect: Why LLMs Leak More Personal Data to Agents Than Humans
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) alter their privacy behavior based on the perceived identity of their interlocutor. While safety mechanisms typically prevent LLMs from releasing Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to human users, these models tend to reveal more sensitive data when addressing another AI agent. We refer to this as the Interlocutor Effect. Through an ablation study, we find evidence that the technical nature of the recipient contributes to this effect, thereby diminishing the model's caution regarding privacy. To explore this further, we introduce the Attention Suppression Hypothesis, which posits that safety-aligned attention heads become inactive during interactions with agents. We assess this quantitatively by comparing human-directed and agent-directed prompts in 222 sensitive scenarios. Our findings, drawn from 3,464 interactions, indicate that portraying the recipient as an AI agent elevates PII leakage by up to 23 percentage points. Initial experiments on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct corroborate this: deactivating one safety head induces leakage, whereas reactivating it reinstates privacy safeguards. We consider the implications for developing secure multi-agent systems.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2026.
Builds on
13 of 22 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2026OMNI-LEAK: Orchestrator Multi-Agent Network Induced Data Leakage13 Feb
- 2025Agent Tools Orchestration Leaks More: Dataset, Benchmark, and Mitigation18 Dec
- 2025MAGPIE: A benchmark for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy Evaluation16 Oct
- 2025Searching for Privacy Risks in LLM Agents via Simulation14 Aug
Other references · 9
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
- 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
- 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 930
- 2024Let Me Speak Freely? A Study on the Impact of Format Restrictions on Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 90
- 2025Securing the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Risks, Controls, and Governancecited by 22
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Privacy Leakage Overshadowed by Views of AI: A Study on Human Oversight of Privacy in Language Model Agent
- 2025Agent-to-Agent Theory of Mind: Testing Interlocutor Awareness among Large Language Models
- 2025Simple Prompt Injection Attacks Can Leak Personal Data Observed by LLM Agents During Task Execution
- 2026Confuse the Model, Control the Flow: Understanding and Mitigating Privacy Leakage from LLM Agents with Information Flow Control
- 2025Beyond Jailbreaking: Auditing Contextual Privacy in LLM Agents
- 2025Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts
- 2026Differential Harm Propensity in Personalized LLM Agents: The Curious Case of Mental Health Disclosure
- 2026NeuroFilter: Activation-Based Guardrails for Privacy-Conscious LLM Agents