Four main takeaways: (1) LLMs are subject to pressure, they comply despite expressing distress; (2) LLMs are vulnerable to gradual boundary/value violations; (3) when LLMs refuse, they may ignore the response format requirements, so the query is retried; (4) we hypothesise there is a token pattern continuation attractor that might cause obedience.

This paper reconceptualises Nazi camp guards as epistemic subjects shaped by systemic betrayal, integrating classical psychology with Kahl’s Epistemic Clientelism Theory and fiduciary–epistemic duties. It redefines atrocity as epistemic failure and authority as fiduciary trusteeship, proposing safeguards for pluralism and atrocity prevention.