arXiv:2608. 07642v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values remains a major challenge, especially for trustworthy AI.
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:2607. 10871v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contemplative traditions have long guided ethical behavior and prosocial interaction, and recent work suggests that contemplative principles (e.
arXiv:2602. 03160v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with the diverse spectrum of human values remains a central challenge: preference-based methods often fail to capture deeper motivational principles.
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
arXiv:2509. 08022v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with diverse human values is essential for safe and effective deployment, yet existing benchmarks often overlook cultural and demographic variation.
arXiv:2606. 01552v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Role-playing agents(RPAs) are widely used to steer large language models(LLMs) toward role-consistent behavior, yet existing benchmarks mainly evaluate surface-level fidelity and offer limited insight into decision making under role-alignment value conflicts.