Large Language Models exhibit implicit personalities in their generation, but reliably controlling or aligning these traits to meet specific needs remains an open challenge. The need for effective mechanisms for behavioural manipulation of the model during generation is a critical gap in the literature that needs to be fulfilled. Personality-aware LLMs hold a promising direction towards this objective.However, the relationship between these psychological constructs and their representations within LLMs remains underexplored and requires further investigation. Moreover, it is intriguing to understand and study the use of these representations to steer the models’ behaviour. We propose a novel pipeline that extracts hidden state activations from transformer layers using the Big Five Personality Traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism), which is a comprehensive and empirically validated framework to model human personality applies low-rank subspace discovery methods, andidentifies trait-specific optimal layers across different model architectures for robust injection. The resulting personality-aligned directions are then operationalised through a flexible steering framework with dynamic layer selection, enabling precise control of trait expression in LLM outputs. Our findings reveal that personality traits occupy a low-rank shared subspace, and that these latent structures can be transformed into actionable mechanisms for effective steering through careful perturbations without impacting the fluency, variance and general capabilities, helping to bridge the gap between psychological theory and practical model alignment.

We investigate the efficacy of Large Language Models (LLMs) in detecting implicit and explicit hate speech, examining how models with minimal safety alignment (uncensored) compare with more heavily aligned (censored) counterparts in a deployed-model setting when deployed using political personas. While uncensored models are often framed as offering a less constrained perspective, our results reveal a trade-off: censored models outperform their uncensored counterparts in both accuracy and robustness, achieving 69.0% versus 64.1% strict accuracy. However, this higher performance is also associated with greater resistance to persona-based influence, while uncensored models are more malleable to ideological framing. Furthermore, we identify critical failures across all models in understanding nuanced language such as irony. We also find alarming fairness disparities in performance across different targeted groups and systemic overconfidence that renders self-reported certainty unreliable. These findings challenge the notion of LLMs as objective arbiters and highlight the need for more sophisticated auditing frameworks that account for fairness, calibration, and ideological consistency. Taken together, these results point to censorship-as-deployed rather than safety alignment in isolation as the more appropriate frame for interpreting model differences.