Instructions Shape Production of Language, not Processing

Language models are trained to follow instructions, but they are also powerful pattern completers. What happens when these two objectives conflict? We construct conversations in which a user instruction to behave in a target way T (e.g., always output a specific token, answer in a particular language, or adopt a persona) is opposed by N hardcoded assistant turns demonstrating a competing pattern P. We then measure instruction-following (IF) rates in this setting, across 13 models and 16 different instructions, for up to 50 turns. Average instruction-following rates range from 1% to 99% across models, largely uncorrelated with standard capability benchmarks. The transition from instruction-following to pattern-following is universal but highly model-dependent. Robustness is modulated both by instruction content, with models resisting induction longer when instructions align with their trained value priors, and by output format, with diverse multi-token responses proving substantially more resistant than single-token outputs. Chain-of-thought reasoning improves robustness but does not eliminate susceptibility, and can produce dissociation between correct deliberation and incorrect output. When asked to predict their behavior in this setting, models achieve 83.5% accuracy on average but systematically underestimate their own resistance to induction pressure. These results suggest that instruction-following remains brittle under induction pressure even for otherwise capable models, and that output diversity, rather than semantic engagement with the input, is the primary factor predicting robustness.

Instruction tuning is commonly assumed to endow language models with a domain-general ability to follow instructions, yet the underlying mechanism remains poorly understood. Does instruction-following rely on a universal mechanism or compositional skill deployment? We investigate this through diagnostic probing across nine diverse tasks in three instruction-tuned models. Our analysis provides converging evidence against a universal mechanism. First, general probes trained across all tasks show selective rather than uniform deficits relative to task-specific specialists, indicating that representational sharing is partial and structured rather than global. Second, cross-task transfer is weak and clustered by skill similarity. Third, causal ablation reveals sparse asymmetric dependencies rather than shared representations. Tasks also stratify by complexity across layers, with structural constraints emerging early and semantic tasks emerging late. Finally, temporal analysis shows that the constraint signal becomes decodable only once generation is under way, and remains so throughout the response. These findings indicate that instruction-following is better characterized as skillful coordination of diverse linguistic capabilities rather than deployment of a single abstract constraint-checking process.

Silicon sampling uses language models as proxies for human survey respondents, treating each model call as an independent draw from the persona's response distribution. We show this draw does not exist: instruction-tuned models do not sample from distributions, they collapse to a single output. The same persona on the same question returns the same answer on more than half of items in a public-opinion benchmark, and the model's internal probabilities concentrate on a single option. The failure is associated with, and amplified by, instruction-targeted post-training: instruction-tuned models are worse than their own bases in every family we can compare, the gap widens at each successive post-training stage and with the size of the tuning update, and continued pretraining on non-instruction tokens leaves it unchanged. Yet the knowledge survives: the same model that cannot sample from a distribution can describe it accurately in a single call. We call this gap the KNOWS/DOES split. Exploiting the split, a single call that asks the model to describe the response distribution more than halves the error against human survey data compared to persona aggregation. When per-persona outputs are required, we propose Prompt-Perturbed Argyle (PPA), which reduces the same error by 21%, spreading each persona's answers to mirror real population differences at no added cost.