The Inattentional Gap: Task-Conditioned Language and Vision Models Omit the Safety-Critical Signals They Can Otherwise Report

arXiv:2606.26529v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI safety is evaluated by how reliably a model detects the hazards it is told to find, yet accidents often arise from the hazard no one specified. We show that conditioning a language or vision model on a narrow task suppresses its reporting of co-present, safety-critical signals it can otherwise report, a machine analogue of human inattentional blindness, produced by a different mechanism. Across radiology and driving text scenarios and chest-radiograph vision tasks, the ordinary focused instructions under which such systems are deployed suppressed reporting by up to 0.92 in report rate relative to the same models when unconstrained, and an explicit exclusive instruction abolished reporting entirely in radiology. Suppression appeared in every model tested, did not diminish with scale, persisted in a reasoning model, and varied more by model family than by size. We name this dissociation the Inattentional Gap and argue that it decouples measured benchmark safety from real-world safety: a system can score near-perfectly on the hazards an evaluation specifies while remaining blind to those that cause harm. Probing the mechanism, we localize the proximal trigger to output scope and find System-1-style task capture without reliable intrinsic oversight in the sampled systems. Oversight could, however, be supplied externally: routing each narrow report to an independent open-ended critic restored every omitted finding, demonstrating that the gap is both measurable and mitigable. We propose reporting-complete evaluation, scoring what a system fails to report alongside what it is asked to find, as a requirement for safety-critical deployment.