Algorithmic Fragility and Persona Bias in LLM-Generated Autistic Communication

Safety alignment reduces explicitly harmful outputs but inadvertently encodes a sanitized, neuronormative representation of marginalized communication. We investigate this encoding using a dual-persona rewrite paradigm, prompting ten large language models (LLMs) to rewrite naturally occurring autistic discourse from either an autistic or neurotypical persona. We uncover autistic-persona rewrites diverge significantly more in lexical form and affective register than neurotypical rewrites, despite equivalent semantic similarity. Furthermore, most models collapse cross-persona generations into near-identical outputs. To uncover the mechanisms behind this generative breakdown, we introduce a multi-agent qualitative analysis framework. Our results reveal systemic output erasure, stereotyped hallucination, and task-evasive meta-commentary are pervasive failure modes for this task that cluster by alignment strategy rather than parameter scale. Finally, our targeted comparison with autistic human annotators demonstrates that community-insider knowledge produces systematic label reversals relative to LLM classifications. Our findings indicate that current alignment training causes persona-specific generative breakdown visible only through qualitative analysis, confirming a deep representational gap that prompt engineering cannot resolve.