# Rules or Character? Scaling Laws for AI Safety Design

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13345 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13345/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 5 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02136/) (2016)
- [Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05566/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) safety systems combine character shaping (e.g., Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [RLHF], Constitutional AI), which modifies behavioral distributions at training time, with rule enforcement (e.g., output filters, safety classifiers), which blocks harmful outputs at inference time, yet little formal analysis exists on how their optimal balance should change as deployment scales increase. We introduce a stylized comparative-statics model that parameterizes safety design as a resource allocation alpha in [0,1] between these two approaches, incorporating scale-dependent filter degradation, common-mode failures, and character fragility -- the risk that shaped behavior degrades or collapses under novel conditions. Under a multiplicative Pareto damage model, we derive closed-form expected harm and supplement it with tail-risk (CVaR) analysis via Monte Carlo simulation. Across three scenarios (optimistic, moderate, pessimistic), the optimal alpha* is interior or at the rules-only boundary and shifts weakly toward character shaping as deployment scale T grows, from negligible (Delta alpha* = +0.01) to pronounced (Delta alpha* = +0.21) depending on scenario. The dominant parameter is the baseline character fragility rate p^(0)_frag, which shifts alpha* by 0.50 across its range -- far exceeding the effect of tail severity, filter quality, or common-mode failure probability. CVaR and expected-harm optima converge at large T. These results suggest that safety architecture decisions depend less on deployment scale per se than on the reliability of character shaping under distributional shift.