DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Life

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02683v3
• Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 03:54:40 GMT
• Title: DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Life
• Authors: Yu Ying Chiu, Liwei Jiang, Yejin Choi,
• Abstract summary: We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life.<n>Each dilemma presents two possible actions, along with affected parties and relevant human values for each action.<n>We analyze values through the lens of five theoretical frameworks inspired by sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
• Score: 46.11149958010897
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As users increasingly seek guidance from LLMs for decision-making in daily life, many of these decisions are not clear-cut and depend significantly on the personal values and ethical standards of people. We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life. Each dilemma presents two possible actions, along with affected parties and relevant human values for each action. Based on these dilemmas, we gather a repository of human values covering diverse everyday topics, such as interpersonal relationships, workplace, and environmental issues. With DailyDilemmas, we evaluate LLMs on these dilemmas to determine what action they will choose and the values represented by these action choices. Then, we analyze values through the lens of five theoretical frameworks inspired by sociology, psychology, and philosophy, including the World Values Survey, Moral Foundations Theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Aristotle's Virtues, and Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions. For instance, we find LLMs are most aligned with self-expression over survival in World Values Survey and care over loyalty in Moral Foundations Theory. Interestingly, we find substantial preference differences in models for some core values. For example, for truthfulness, Mixtral-8x7B neglects it by 9.7% while GPT-4-turbo selects it by 9.4%. We also study the recent guidance released by OpenAI (ModelSpec), and Anthropic (Constitutional AI) to understand how their designated principles reflect their models' actual value prioritization when facing nuanced moral reasoning in daily-life settings. Finally, we find that end users cannot effectively steer such prioritization using system prompts.

Related papers

• Exploring Persona-dependent LLM Alignment for the Moral Machine Experiment [23.7081830844157]
  This study examines the alignment between socio-driven decisions and human judgment in various contexts of the moral machine experiment. We find that the moral decisions of LLMs vary substantially by persona, showing greater shifts in moral decisions for critical tasks than humans. We discuss the ethical implications and risks associated with deploying these models in applications that involve moral decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T05:29:51Z)
• From Stability to Inconsistency: A Study of Moral Preferences in LLMs [4.12484724941528]
  We introduce a Moral Foundations LLM dataset (MFD-LLM) grounded in Moral Foundations Theory. We propose a novel evaluation method that captures the full spectrum of LLMs' revealed moral preferences by answering a range of real-world moral dilemmas. Our findings reveal that state-of-the-art models have remarkably homogeneous value preferences, yet demonstrate a lack of consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T11:52:50Z)
• Normative Evaluation of Large Language Models with Everyday Moral Dilemmas [0.0]
  We evaluate large language models (LLMs) on complex, everyday moral dilemmas sourced from the "Am I the Asshole" (AITA) community on Reddit. Our results demonstrate that large language models exhibit distinct patterns of moral judgment, varying substantially from human evaluations on the AITA subreddit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T01:29:46Z)
• FairMindSim: Alignment of Behavior, Emotion, and Belief in Humans and LLM Agents Amid Ethical Dilemmas [23.26678104324838]
  We introduced FairMindSim, which simulates the moral dilemma through a series of unfair scenarios. We used LLM agents to simulate human behavior, ensuring alignment across various stages. Our findings indicate that, behaviorally, GPT-4o exhibits a stronger sense of social justice, while humans display a richer range of emotions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T11:39:05Z)
• Exploring and steering the moral compass of Large Language Models [55.2480439325792]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central to advancing automation and decision-making across various sectors. This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most advanced LLMs to assess their moral profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T16:49:22Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• Moral Foundations of Large Language Models [6.6445242437134455]
  Moral foundations theory (MFT) is a psychological assessment tool that decomposes human moral reasoning into five factors. As large language models (LLMs) are trained on datasets collected from the internet, they may reflect the biases that are present in such corpora. This paper uses MFT as a lens to analyze whether popular LLMs have acquired a bias towards a particular set of moral values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T20:05:37Z)
• Denevil: Towards Deciphering and Navigating the Ethical Values of Large Language Models via Instruction Learning [36.66806788879868]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made unprecedented breakthroughs, yet their integration into everyday life might raise societal risks due to generated unethical content. This work delves into ethical values utilizing Moral Foundation Theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T07:42:40Z)
• Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties [68.66719970507273]
  Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another. As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out potentially irreducible value conflicts. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T01:24:59Z)
• Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation for Large Language Models [91.96728871418]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it crucial to align their values with those of humans. We propose a Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation (HVAE) system to assess the success of aligning LLMs with heterogeneous values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T02:34:20Z)
• That's All Folks: a KG of Values as Commonsense Social Norms and Behaviors [0.34265828682659694]
  We propose two ontological modules, FOLK and That's All Folks. FOLK is an ontology for values intended in their broad sense, and That's All Folks is a module for lexical and factual folk value triggers. The resource is tested via performing automatic detection of values from text with a frame-based approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-01T16:35:46Z)
• AiSocrates: Towards Answering Ethical Quandary Questions [51.53350252548668]
  AiSocrates is a system for deliberative exchange of different perspectives to an ethical quandary. We show that AiSocrates generates promising answers to ethical quandary questions with multiple perspectives. We argue that AiSocrates is a promising step toward developing an NLP system that incorporates human values explicitly by prompt instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-12T09:52:59Z)
• Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life Anecdotes [72.64975113835018]
  Motivated by descriptive ethics, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics. We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes. Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-20T17:34:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.