The paper argues that AI alignment depends on a system’s ability to exhibit a coherent moral policy—stable, monotonic, decisive, and Pareto‑viable—rather than on any specific moral standard. The authors test nine large language models across varied moral scenarios and find that none maintain consistent verdicts, with surface‑form changes causing up to 99% shifts in outcomes. This indicates that current LLM agents lack the structural moral competence required for meaningful alignment.
By Arno Libert, Derck W. E. Prinzhorn, Daan R. Henselmans
arXiv:2510. 16380v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us.
By Yu Ying Chiu, Michael S. Lee, Rachel Calcott, Brandon Handoko, Paul de Font-Reaulx, Rapha\"el Milli\`ere, Paula Rodriguez, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Ziwen Han, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Yash Maurya, Christina Q Knight, Harry R. Lloyd, Florence Bacus, Conor Downey, Mantas Mazeika, Bing Liu, Yejin Choi, Mitchell L Gordon, Sydney Levine
arXiv:2606. 00013v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Social conformity is a well-documented phenomenon in which individuals shift their opinions towards those of a social majority.
By Yana Venerina, Dmitry Koch, Nare Meloyan, Gerda Prutko, Valeriia Lelik, Victoria Taova, Andrey Kurpatov
arXiv:2606. 11635v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: For highly capable AI systems to operate safely in dynamic, open-ended environments, they must be able to identify, understand, and respond to moral reasons for action, and constrain their behaviour accordingly.
By Menghang Zhu, Seth Lazar
arXiv:2604. 24155v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The project of aligning machine behavior with human values raises a basic problem: whose moral expectations should guide AI decision-making?
By Benjamin Minhao Chen, Xinyu Xie
arXiv:2606. 31213v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as moral advisors and agents, they need to address dilemmas between two competing values.
By Jongchan Choi, Nari Yang, Sung Soo Park, Jaemin Cho, Han Seoyoung, Haerin Shin, Jun-Hyung Park
arXiv:2607. 20461v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Present implementations of artificial intelligence (AI) ethics do not adequately take feelings, or affect, into account.
By Jonny O'Dwyer, Malika Bendechache, Louise McCormack, Elif Calik, Ramin Ranjbarzadeh, Dost Muhammad, Shokofeh Anari Bozcheloei, Ishita Singh
arXiv:2608.24748v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)? We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixe...
By Jacy Reese Anthis, Erik Brynjolfsson, James Evans
arXiv:2603. 00048v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive applications including psychological support, healthcare, and high-stakes decision-making.
By Erica Coppolillo, Emilio Ferrara
The paper reports the first empirical study comparing how humans and large language models (LLMs) evaluate perceived moral agency (PMA) in both human and autonomous artificial agents within smart city scenarios. Using a validated PMA scale, 190 human participants and various LLMs were assessed, revealing that humans are perceived to have higher moral agency than artificial agents. When confronted with moral dilemmas, LLMs focus on situational factors such as harm severity and urgency, mirroring the context‑sensitivity observed in human raters.
By Fernanda Mansilla, Aloysius Tok, Bahia Guella\"i, Farah Benamara, Nancy F. Chen
How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)? We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixed-methods study with computational text analysis of...
arXiv:2601. 21433v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing.
By Katherine Elkins, Jon Chun