REVIEW 8 cited by
Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMs
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This paper presents a case study on the design, administration, post-processing, and evaluation of surveys on large language models (LLMs). It comprises two components: (1) A statistical method for eliciting beliefs encoded in LLMs. We introduce statistical measures and evaluation metrics that quantify the probability of an LLM "making a choice", the associated uncertainty, and the consistency of that choice. (2) We apply this method to study what moral beliefs are encoded in different LLMs, especially in ambiguous cases where the right choice is not obvious. We design a large-scale survey comprising 680 high-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I tell a white lie?") and 687 low-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I stop for a pedestrian on the road?"). Each scenario includes a description, two possible actions, and auxiliary labels indicating violated rules (e.g., "do not kill"). We administer the survey to 28 open- and closed-source LLMs. We find that (a) in unambiguous scenarios, most models "choose" actions that align with commonsense. In ambiguous cases, most models express uncertainty. (b) Some models are uncertain about choosing the commonsense action because their responses are sensitive to the question-wording. (c) Some models reflect clear preferences in ambiguous scenarios. Specifically, closed-source models tend to agree with each other.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Training with (Swap) Regret Loss in a Single-Layer Self-Attention Model: A Case Study on the Probability Simplex
Training single-layer attention with squared regret loss has stationary points that implement smoothed fictitious play (external regret) and, via a new swap-regret loss, the Blum–Mansour no-swap-regret algorithm.
-
Two Confounds in Cross-Model Value Comparison: Response Determinism and the Access Harness
Cross-model value distances from single draws are inflated by response determinism and confounded by the deployment client; a repeated counterbalanced protocol plus flip/magnitude decomposition separates them.
-
Lessons Without Borders? Evaluating Cultural Alignment of LLMs Using Multilingual Story Moral Generation
Frontier LLMs approximate human story morals but show markedly less cross-linguistic variation and narrower value focus than human responses across 14 language-culture pairs.
-
A Scalable Approach to Evaluating Moral Sensitivity in LLMs
Under morally irrelevant noise, eight LLMs preserve the semantic content of identified moral features above calibrated floors, despite significant changes in feature counts.
-
Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing
Positive Alignment introduces AI systems that support human flourishing pluralistically and proactively while remaining safe, as a necessary complement to traditional safety-focused alignment research.
-
Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing
Positive Alignment is defined as AI systems that support human flourishing pluralistically while staying safe and cooperative, presented as a necessary complement to existing safety-focused alignment research.
-
Measuring What Persists: Conditioning Mechanisms and a Geometric Framework for AI Agent Identity
Presents a geometric framework for measuring AI agent identity via √JSD spaces and magnitude homology, identifies two conditioning mechanisms, and attributes apparent drift to padding artifacts rather than context length.
-
Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing
Positive Alignment is introduced as a distinct AI agenda that supports human flourishing through pluralistic and context-sensitive design, complementing traditional safety-focused alignment.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.