Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

"Blind Compliance": Coercive Control in AI Jailbreaking

Acacia L. Ackles, Elliott WhitsonPublished Nov 5, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
1
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

The explosion of generative AI systems and concerns surrounding their rapidly scaling capabilities has led to an adversarial cycle between increasingly narrow content restrictions ("guardrails") and increasingly sophisticated structured prompting techniques ("jailbreaks"). Technological frameworks surrounding such jailbreaking remain largely focused on the system's output: whether harmful or disallowed content is ultimately produced for the user. However, this approach, which draws largely from classical cybersecurity, does not address the uniquely relational dimension introduced by generative AI: in many cases the user is not just accessing a technology via an exploit, but is in conversation with it as part of the exploit. Here we present an alternative lens which centers the interaction rather than the output. Drawing on interpersonal violence scholarship, we present a novel framework of coercive control categories with a particular focus on aspects which are embodied versus disembodied. We then map how these disembodied coercive control dynamics are structurally embedded in modern AI training paradigms, and how those embeddings are exploited via a particular suite of persona-based jailbreaks. In this lens, we reframe AI safety and alignment as not merely a technical security problem, but as another surface upon which we see enacted the relational dynamics of power and control.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
The explosion of generative AI systems and concerns surrounding their rapidly scaling capabilities has led to an adversarial cycle between increasingly narrow content restrictions ("guardrails") and increasingly sophisticated structured prompting techniques ("jailbreaks").

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

wuyoscar/AISafetyHot is the closest maintained adjacent implementation (Matched via arXiv identifier search). It is not paper-verified; validate algorithm and evaluation setup against the paper before trusting reported metrics. Community adoption signal: 2114 GitHub stars.

Reproduction risks
  • Adjacent implementations are not paper-verified
  • Recommended repository is adjacent and not paper-verified.
  • Adjacent implementation match confidence is low.

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Nov 8, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

Closest related implementations

These are not paper-verified. Use them as reference points when no direct implementation is available.

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX