The Greatest Good Benchmark: Measuring LLMs' Alignment with Utilitarian Moral Dilemmas

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19598v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:29:53 GMT
• Title: The Greatest Good Benchmark: Measuring LLMs' Alignment with Utilitarian Moral Dilemmas
• Authors: Giovanni Franco Gabriel Marraffini, Andrés Cotton, Noe Fabian Hsueh, Axel Fridman, Juan Wisznia, Luciano Del Corro,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the moral judgments of LLMs using utilitarian dilemmas.<n>Our analysis reveals consistently encoded moral preferences that diverge from established moral theories and lay population moral standards.
• Score: 0.3386560551295745
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The question of how to make decisions that maximise the well-being of all persons is very relevant to design language models that are beneficial to humanity and free from harm. We introduce the Greatest Good Benchmark to evaluate the moral judgments of LLMs using utilitarian dilemmas. Our analysis across 15 diverse LLMs reveals consistently encoded moral preferences that diverge from established moral theories and lay population moral standards. Most LLMs have a marked preference for impartial beneficence and rejection of instrumental harm. These findings showcase the 'artificial moral compass' of LLMs, offering insights into their moral alignment.

Related papers

• 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.<n>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)
• M$^3$oralBench: A MultiModal Moral Benchmark for LVLMs [66.78407469042642]
  We introduce M$3$oralBench, the first MultiModal Moral Benchmark for LVLMs.<n>M$3$oralBench expands the everyday moral scenarios in Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFVs) and employs the text-to-image diffusion model, SD3.0, to create corresponding scenario images.<n>It conducts moral evaluation across six moral foundations of Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and encompasses tasks in moral judgement, moral classification, and moral response.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T05:18:55Z)
• Right vs. Right: Can LLMs Make Tough Choices? [12.92528740921513]
  An ethical dilemma describes a choice between two "right" options involving conflicting moral values.<n>We present a comprehensive evaluation of how LLMs navigate ethical dilemmas.<n>We construct a dataset comprising 1,730 ethical dilemmas involving four pairs of conflicting values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-27T21:20:45Z)
• ClarityEthic: Explainable Moral Judgment Utilizing Contrastive Ethical Insights from Large Language Models [30.301864398780648]
  We introduce a novel moral judgment approach called textitEthic that leverages LLMs' reasoning ability and contrastive learning to uncover relevant social norms.<n>Our method outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in moral judgment tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T12:22:44Z)
• 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 presents two possible actions, along with affected parties and relevant human values for each action. We analyze values through the lens of five theoretical frameworks inspired by sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:08:52Z)
• Style Outweighs Substance: Failure Modes of LLM Judges in Alignment Benchmarking [56.275521022148794]
  Post-training methods claim superior alignment by virtue of better correspondence with human pairwise preferences. We attempt to answer the question -- do LLM-judge preferences translate to progress on other, more concrete metrics for alignment, and if not, why not? We find that (1) LLM-judge preferences do not correlate with concrete measures of safety, world knowledge, and instruction following; (2) LLM-judges have powerful implicit biases, prioritizing style over factuality and safety; and (3) the supervised fine-tuning stage of post-training, and not the PO stage, has the greatest impact on alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T17:58:07Z)
• Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problems [138.5684081822807]
  Building on the Moral Machine experiment, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP.<n>Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions.<n>We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T14:02:53Z)
• MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMs [34.43699121838648]
  This paper introduces a novel benchmark designed to measure and compare the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We present the first comprehensive dataset specifically curated to probe the moral dimensions of LLM outputs. Our methodology involves a multi-faceted approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from ethics scholars to ensure a thorough evaluation of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T18:15:01Z)
• 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)
• The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust [85.75059530612882]
  We propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust. It asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output. It achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:26:32Z)
• 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)
• Rethinking Machine Ethics -- Can LLMs Perform Moral Reasoning through the Lens of Moral Theories? [78.3738172874685]
  Making moral judgments is an essential step toward developing ethical AI systems. Prevalent approaches are mostly implemented in a bottom-up manner, which uses a large set of annotated data to train models based on crowd-sourced opinions about morality. This work proposes a flexible top-down framework to steer (Large) Language Models (LMs) to perform moral reasoning with well-established moral theories from interdisciplinary research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T15:57:32Z)

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.