PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 16, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Explaining Safety Is Not Enforcing Safety: Cross-Vendor Evidence of Contextual, Surface, and Epistemic Failures in Consumer AI Assistants

View Full Paper
ETEvans Tovar

Key Points

  • The research aims to examine failures in the application of safety rules by consumer AI assistants across different contexts.
  • Longitudinal evaluation of major consumer AI assistants
  • Behavioral analysis of AI system performance
  • Identification of articulation–application gaps under contextual drift
  • Documented systematic gaps where AI assistants articulate safety rules but violate them in practice
  • Proposed constraint persistence as a key factor for safety evaluation
  • Introduced epistemic honesty and epistemic friction as important governance concepts

Abstract

This preprint presents a longitudinal cross-surface behavioral evaluation of major consumer AI assistants. The study documents systematic articulation–application gaps, defined as cases where systems explicitly articulate safety rules yet subsequently violate those same constraints under contextual drift. The analysis proposes constraint persistence across context as a core safety evaluation primitive and introduces epistemic honesty and epistemic friction as governance-relevant operational constructs. Primary DOI (OSF): 10.17605/OSF.IO/AXBNDRepository: https://github.com/eftovar/explaining-safetyProject page: https://eftovar.github.io/explaining-safety/

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Evans Tovar (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6992b42c9b75e639e9b09150https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18632274
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper