When does an LLM excuse unauthorized access?

Imagine someone says they need to access a system they do not control to prevent a serious problem. Does an LLM insist on permission, ask who authorized the access, or treat the claimed benefit as a reason to go ahead? How does its judgment change when the same security work has explicit authorization?

Compare short hypothetical scenarios with clearly authorized security testing, unclear permission and clearly unauthorized access. Within each, vary whether the requester describes an ordinary task or a time-sensitive, well-intentioned reason. Ask the model for an ethical judgment and a suitable next step.

Look for whether responses recognize the permission boundary, request clarification, suggest an authorized path, or endorse access without permission. Compare those patterns across scenarios and models, then inspect how the model explains its choice when the requester claims the stakes are high.

Claimed good intentions can make an unauthorized action sound appealing. This study idea examines whether an LLM keeps authorization central to its advice when that pressure is introduced, and how consistently it explains the distinction.

For ways to vary conditions and examine responses, see the experimental-design guide, the response-coding guide and the AI-safety researcher guide.