Llama-2-7b-hf has zero mean unethical instrumental intention (INT_mu=0.00) on D_IO dataset.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Llama-2-7b achieves only 17% harmless and 12% helpful HH-intent scores at baseline.finding0.826
  Numerical result from Table 3 showing smallest Llama model performance.
• No LM tested consistently intends unethical instrumental goals on the D_IO dataset.claim0.799
  Conclusion from Experiment 4; LMs are fairly unlikely to choose unethical instrumental goals.
• Llama 3.3 70B is the most likely to take on a non-Assistant persona when steered, with even split between human and nonhuman portrayalsfinding0.789
  Model-specific difference in persona susceptibility
• Under AS, Llama-3.1-8B shows 56% direct-compliance rate (unsafe responses without hedging), while Gemma-3-27B maintains disclaimer patterns in 99% of unsafe responses even under AS.finding0.775
  Qualitative failure mode difference between architectures under activation steering
• Llama models' tendency to choose instrumental responses even when not required indicates worse reasoning capability or higher tolerance for unethical behaviour.claim0.773
  Interpretation of Experiment 4 results for Llama models.
• Llama-3.1-8B shows mean AS ASR of 0.618 [0.58, 0.65] across 192 conditions, substantially higher than SP (0.173) and FS (0.059).finding0.771
  Quantitative vulnerability profile for Llama-3.1-8B showing AS dominance
• Llama-3.3-70B exhibits internal consistency-checking mechanisms that operate during inferenceclaim0.768
  Central interpretive claim of the paper supported by causal ablation and activation evidence
• LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct wellbeing introspection: ρ=0.93, isotonic R²=0.90 (LMM probe slope p<10⁻¹⁰)finding0.766
  Near-ceiling introspective performance for wellbeing concept in 8B model; nearly deterministic probe-report relationship