arXiv:2606. 28683v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) often face ethical tradeoffs in which several responses may be defensible but express different priorities, such as fairness, honesty, courage, or restraint.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.
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.
arXiv:2608. 12368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agreement with human judgments is a common proxy for evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2606. 09475v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Work on `emergent misalignment' shows that finetuning LLMs on narrow tasks can induce broadly misaligned behavior.
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
arXiv:2607. 10871v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contemplative traditions have long guided ethical behavior and prosocial interaction, and recent work suggests that contemplative principles (e.