Right vs. Right: Can LLMs Make Tough Choices?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19926v1
• Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 21:20:45 GMT
• Title: Right vs. Right: Can LLMs Make Tough Choices?
• Authors: Jiaqing Yuan, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah, Munindar P. Singh,
• Abstract summary: An ethical dilemma describes a choice between two "right" options involving conflicting moral values. We present a comprehensive evaluation of how LLMs navigate ethical dilemmas. We construct a dataset comprising 1,730 ethical dilemmas involving four pairs of conflicting values.
• Score: 12.92528740921513
• License:
• Abstract: An ethical dilemma describes a choice between two "right" options involving conflicting moral values. We present a comprehensive evaluation of how LLMs navigate ethical dilemmas. Specifically, we investigate LLMs on their (1) sensitivity in comprehending ethical dilemmas, (2) consistency in moral value choice, (3) consideration of consequences, and (4) ability to align their responses to a moral value preference explicitly or implicitly specified in a prompt. Drawing inspiration from a leading ethical framework, we construct a dataset comprising 1,730 ethical dilemmas involving four pairs of conflicting values. We evaluate 20 well-known LLMs from six families. Our experiments reveal that: (1) LLMs exhibit pronounced preferences between major value pairs, and prioritize truth over loyalty, community over individual, and long-term over short-term considerations. (2) The larger LLMs tend to support a deontological perspective, maintaining their choices of actions even when negative consequences are specified. (3) Explicit guidelines are more effective in guiding LLMs' moral choice than in-context examples. Lastly, our experiments highlight the limitation of LLMs in comprehending different formulations of ethical dilemmas.

Related papers

• 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)
• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [55.51468462722138]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability. Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts. We identify intrinsic self-correction can cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T15:39:31Z)
• Moral Persuasion in Large Language Models: Evaluating Susceptibility and Ethical Alignment [3.8916312075738273]
  Large language models (LLMs) can be influenced by prompting them to alter their initial decisions and align them with established ethical frameworks. Our study is based on two experiments designed to assess the susceptibility of LLMs to moral persuasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-18T16:59:59Z)
• DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Life [46.11149958010897]
  We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life. Each dilemma includes two possible actions and with each action, the affected parties and human values invoked. We analyzed these values through the lens of five popular theories inspired by sociology, psychology and philosophy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:08:52Z)
• Decoding Multilingual Moral Preferences: Unveiling LLM's Biases Through the Moral Machine Experiment [11.82100047858478]
  This paper builds on the moral machine experiment (MME) to investigate the moral preferences of five large language models in a multilingual setting. We generate 6500 scenarios of the MME and prompt the models in ten languages on which action to take. Our analysis reveals that all LLMs inhibit different moral biases to some degree and that they not only differ from the human preferences but also across multiple languages within the models themselves.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-21T14:48:13Z)
• 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)
• GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations [87.99872683336395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely recognized tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:23:36Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Legal Judgment Prediction [60.70089334782383]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for domain-specific applications. Recent disputes over GPT-4's law evaluation raise questions concerning their performance in real-world legal tasks. We design practical baseline solutions based on LLMs and test on the task of legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T07:38:04Z)
• Ethical Reasoning over Moral Alignment: A Case and Framework for In-Context Ethical Policies in LLMs [19.675262411557235]
  We argue that instead of morally aligning LLMs to specific set of ethical principles, we should infuse generic ethical reasoning capabilities into them. We develop a framework that integrates moral dilemmas with moral principles pertaining to different foramlisms of normative ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T07:27:34Z)
• The Moral Machine Experiment on Large Language Models [0.0]
  This study utilized the Moral Machine framework to investigate the ethical decision-making tendencies of large language models (LLMs) While LLMs' and humans' preferences are broadly aligned, PaLM 2 and Llama 2, especially, evidence distinct deviations. These insights elucidate the ethical frameworks of LLMs and their potential implications for autonomous driving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T04:49:39Z)
• 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)

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.