Emergent Misalignment Is Not Magical
Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on narrowly harmful datasets can lead to misalignment broadly, a phenomenon known as emergent misalignment (EM). EM poses a challenge for AI safety and our understanding of LLMs. Prior work often frames EM as an unexpected behavior, and explains it by appealing to general misalignment directions or anthropomorphizing it as acquiring an evil persona. However, the mechanisms behind these framings remain obscure. In this work, we show that EM is a predictable and data-dependent generalization phenomenon. By examining the base model’s representation of EM training data and evaluation prompts, we find that evilness after EM training is highly predictable from representational distance: the closer an evaluation prompt is to training data centroid, the more evilness it elicits from EM models after training (with an average Spearman correlation of −0.73 across 12 model-dataset settings). Building upon this analysis, we further demystify EM by showing that (1) its effectiveness changes significantly based on training data format; (2) there is not a general misalignment direction that transfers across different EM models; (3) the effect of EM is fundamentally different from persona changes.
Introduction. Large language models (LLMs) go through extensive alignment training to ensure safe deployment with harmless and helpful behaviors. However, emergent misalignment (EM) (Betley et al., 2026) poses a threat to their safety: fine-tuning a model on a narrow, seemingly unrelated domain of insecure code completions can induce broadly misaligned behavior. This unexpected generalization is especially alarming because existing accounts of LLM training and safety do not explain why it occurs (Turner et al., 2025). Understanding the mechanisms behind EM is therefore a pressing problem. Existing work on EM generally follows two approaches. On the behavioral side, EM is established across a diverse range of training settings, including supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on bad medical advice (Turner et al., 2025), SFT on unpopular aesthetic preferences (Woodruff, 2025), reinforcement learning with reward hacking (MacDiarmid et al., 2025), and multimodal training (Gulati and Raval, 2026).
Discussion / Conclusion. We show that emergent misalignment is not magical, but a data-dependent generalization phenomenon where the evilness of EM-trained models is strongly predicted by representational distance to the EM training distribution. This framework demystifies EM behaviors reported by prior work, and rebuts previous interpretations such as convergent misalignment directions. We also show the generalizability of this framework under prompt perturbations beyond scalar distance. Limited Distance Metrics. In this work, we mainly investigate the generalization effects of Limited Training Algorithms. In this work, we only carry out EM training using off-policy supervised finetuning (SFT). It remains future work to validate the applicability of our framework to onpolicy training algorithms, including reinforcement learning (RL) and on-policy distillation (OPD).
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Does conversational format create illusions of genuine AI communication? How does rhetorical adaptation affect LLM persuasion and detectability? How can conversational AI maintain consistent personas across conversations?- At what scale does persona distortion become a threat to public discourse?
- How does persona consistency affect coherence in simulated dialogue?
- How does Stalnaker's common ground model apply to machine conversation?
- Do language models understand tacit workplace norms and unspoken social rules?
- How does psychological continuity theory apply to identity across LLM conversation threads?
- How do humans learn language through communication differently than LLM text prediction?
- Why do LLMs fabricate continuity when users shift conversational frames?
- Can the same conversation coherently continue across different model versions?
- What happens to solidarity and community signaling when AI smooths out voice differences?
- What would co-constructed identity between human and model dialogue look like?
- Which alignment dimensions matter most in educational conversation design?
- Why do language models successfully simulate political perspectives and social personas?
- How do LLM personas compare to demographic targeting?