arXiv AI
Human-like moral judgments conceal divergent motive attributions in large language models
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Aug 14
Agreement Is Not Alignment: Divergent Moral Grounds in Human and LLM Ethical Judgments
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 AI
Jul 24
Confidently Deceptive: How Confidence Amplifies the Risk of LLM Deception
arXiv:2607. 20444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can produce deceptive responses: outputs that mislead users in service of a contextually or experimentally induced goal.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
Characterizing Rhetorical Misalignment in Decision-Making with Language Models
arXiv:2608. 14630v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human decision-making is often shaped by a range of well-documented cognitive biases.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 6
The Judgment-Consequence Gap: LLM Moral Reasoning in Healthcare Decisions
As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their moral reasoning becomes essential. Decisions about scarce medical resources often hinge on judgments of responsibility, particularly when patients' own actions contribute to illness.
arXiv AI
Aug 14
MOSAIC: Unveiling the Moral, Social and Individual Dimensions of Large Language Models
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 AI
Aug 7
The Judgment-Consequence Gap: LLM Moral Reasoning in Healthcare Decisions
arXiv:2608. 05583v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their moral reasoning becomes essential.