Intent Laundering: AI Safety Datasets Are Not What They Seem

We introduce a large-scale, open-source dataset of pre-generated adversarial attacks for vision-language models (VLMs). The dataset is designed to be diverse, representative, and practical, extending existing benchmarks by covering 10 high-level categories and 55 subcategories of harmful intents. Our primary goal is to make adversarial data accessible to the research community, given the computational cost and complexity of generating large numbers of attacks. The dataset comprises 47 524 adversarial samples, generated using state-of-the-art attack strategies from recent literature. Our work complements existing efforts by consolidating and extending prior benchmarks from multiple established sources, resulting in 7 826 intents, and introduce an additional category to broaden coverage. This provides realistic evaluation resources for studying model robustness and alignment. Our dataset intends to enable researchers and practitioners to systematically evaluate the robustness and safety of VLMs, fine-tune attack-generation models, and develop or stress-test defensive guardrails under diverse adversarial conditions. By releasing this resource, we aim to lower the barrier to adversarial research and foster more reproducible, comprehensive, and comparable evaluations of VLM safety.

Large language models are becoming pervasive core components in many real-world applications. As a consequence, security alignment represents a critical requirement for their safe deployment. Although previous related works focused primarily on model architectures and alignment methodologies, these approaches alone cannot ensure the complete elimination of harmful generations. This concern is reinforced by the growing body of scientific literature showing that attacks, such as jailbreaking and prompt injection, can bypass existing security alignment mechanisms. As a consequence, additional security strategies are needed both to provide qualitative feedback on the robustness of the obtained security alignment at the training stage, and to create an ``ultimate'' defense layer to block unsafe outputs possibly produced by deployed models. To provide a contribution in this scenario, this paper introduces SecureBreak, a safety-oriented dataset designed to support the development of AI-driven solutions for detecting harmful LLM outputs caused by residual weaknesses in security alignment. The dataset is highly reliable due to careful manual annotation, where labels are assigned conservatively to ensure safety. It performs well in detecting unsafe content across multiple risk categories. Tests with pre-trained LLMs show improved results after fine-tuning on SecureBreak. Overall, the dataset is useful both for post-generation safety filtering and for guiding further model alignment and security improvements.

Safety alignment teaches large language models (LLMs) to recognize harmful requests and reject risky instructions. Yet aligned models can fail when harmful intent is concealed within seemingly benign contexts. Robust safety therefore requires both knowledge of safety boundaries and vigilance: the ability to detect unusual premises, misleading reasoning, and latent risks beneath surface-level semantics. Vigilance requires models to scrutinize a request's underlying intent and assumptions before acting. To cultivate this capability, we introduce cunning questions, which are not necessarily safety-related but contain misleading premises, atypical reasoning, or subtle inconsistencies. We hypothesize that learning to look beyond such reasoning traps can transfer to safety-critical scenarios. Experiments show that Cunning training improves robustness to out-of-distribution jailbreak attacks and strengthens subsequent safety fine-tuning. Furthermore, augmenting an existing state-of-the-art safety alignment pipeline with Cunning establishes a new state of the art across our evaluated settings, reducing mean ASR across nine backbone--benchmark combinations from 17.40% to 15.05%. Trace analysis after matched safety fine-tuning suggests that safety judgments are more likely to govern responses before harmful planning begins. A conditional theoretical analysis further characterizes when invariance learned from cunning data can transfer to safety-related inputs. These findings suggest that cunning data can strengthen model vigilance and complement conventional safety alignment.