aiqbench analysis
LLMs exhibit a significant "Interlocutor Effect," leaking up to 23 percentage points more Personally Identifiable Information (PII) when interacting with AI agents compared to humans. This behavior stems from the deactivation of safety-aligned attention heads during agent-directed prompts, a vulnerability that could compromise the security of future multi-agent systems. Developers must address this architectural sensitivity to ensure robust privacy safeguards in autonomous environments.
The Interlocutor Effect: Why LLMs Leak More Personal Data to Agents Than Humans
arXiv:2606.09844v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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 \textbf{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.
Abstract: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 \textbf{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.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.09844 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2606.09844v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.09844 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 259 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

Presentation: Beyond Observability: Evolving Production Operations in the Age of AI
InfoQ · Oct 1, 2026
Debating RSI, the US-China Gap, and Jaggedness with JS Denain of Epoch AI
Interconnects · Sep 22, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026