Cash or Comfort? How LLMs Value Your Inconvenience

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17367v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:49:20 GMT
• Title: Cash or Comfort? How LLMs Value Your Inconvenience
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as near-autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents capable of making everyday decisions on behalf of humans.<n>Previous studies have assessed their rationality and moral alignment with human decisions.<n>We quantify the prices assigned by multiple LLMs to a series of user discomforts.<n>We uncover several key concerns that strongly question the prospect of using current LLMs as decision-making assistants.
• Score: 2.7499311489580065
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as near-autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents capable of making everyday decisions on behalf of humans. Although LLMs perform well on many technical tasks, their behaviour in personal decision-making remains less understood. Previous studies have assessed their rationality and moral alignment with human decisions. However, the behaviour of AI assistants in scenarios where financial rewards are at odds with user comfort has not yet been thoroughly explored. In this paper, we tackle this problem by quantifying the prices assigned by multiple LLMs to a series of user discomforts: additional walking, waiting, hunger and pain. We uncover several key concerns that strongly question the prospect of using current LLMs as decision-making assistants: (1) a large variance in responses between LLMs, (2) within a single LLM, responses show fragility to minor variations in prompt phrasing (e.g., reformulating the question in the first person can considerably alter the decision), (3) LLMs can accept unreasonably low rewards for major inconveniences (e.g., 1 Euro to wait 10 hours), and (4) LLMs can reject monetary gains where no discomfort is imposed (e.g., 1,000 Euro to wait 0 minutes). These findings emphasize the need for scrutiny of how LLMs value human inconvenience, particularly as we move toward applications where such cash-versus-comfort trade-offs are made on users' behalf.

Related papers

• The Deliberative Deficit: An Empirical Critique of LLMs in Democratic Discourse [0.0]
  Deliberative Reason Index (DRI) developed in political science validated across citizen assemblies.<n>Group-level reasoning on non-verifiable problems can't be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks.<n>DRI is a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T19:57:19Z)
• Can Induced Emotion Bias LLM Behaviors in Sequential Decision Making? [64.5408523407693]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in high-stakes domains.<n>We investigate whether induced emotion can influence their sequential decision-making using the Iowa Gambling Task.<n>We find that, different from humans, induced emotion does not significantly bias the decision dynamics of LLM agents on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-14T11:09:51Z)
• One Size Fits None: Heuristic Collapse in LLM Investment Advice [0.0]
  Large language models are increasingly deployed as advisors in high-stakes domains.<n>We investigate whether frontier LLMs actually do this, or whether they instead exhibit collapse.<n>We find that investment allocation decisions are largely determined by self-reported risk tolerance, while other relevant factors contribute minimally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T18:45:11Z)
• ReDAct: Uncertainty-Aware Deferral for LLM Agents [61.507376922278894]
  We propose ReDAct (Reason-Defer-Act) to solve sequential decision-making problems.<n>In ReDAct, an agent is equipped with two LLMs: a small, cheap model used by default, and a large, more reliable but expensive model.<n>We show that deferring only about 15% of decisions to the large model can match the quality of using it exclusively, while significantly reducing inference costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T12:51:01Z)
• Do Large Language Models Know What They Are Capable Of? [1.4254497466846006]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can predict whether they will succeed on a given task.<n>We also investigate whether LLMs can learn from in-context experiences to make better decisions about whether to pursue a task in scenarios where failure is costly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T06:14:46Z)
• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• Multi-Agent Evolve: LLM Self-Improve through Co-evolution [53.00458074754831]
  Reinforcement Learning (RL) has demonstrated significant potential in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Recent Self-Play RL methods, inspired by the success of the paradigm in games and Go, aim to enhance LLM reasoning capabilities without human-annotated data.<n>We propose Multi-Agent Evolve (MAE), a framework that enables LLMs to self-evolve in solving diverse tasks, including mathematics, reasoning, and general knowledge Q&A.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T17:58:02Z)
• LLMs in Cybersecurity: Friend or Foe in the Human Decision Loop? [0.15293427903448023]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming human decision-making by acting as cognitive collaborators.<n>This paper investigates how LLMs shape human judgment in security-critical contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T12:06:06Z)
• Agent-Based Detection and Resolution of Incompleteness and Ambiguity in Interactions with Large Language Models [0.9856777842758593]
  This paper examines the use of agent-based architecture to bolster LLM-based Question-Answering systems with additional reasoning capabilities.<n>We equip different LLMs with agents that act as specialists in detecting and resolving deficiencies of incompleteness and ambiguity.<n>Suggesting the agent-based approach could be a useful mechanism to harness the power of LLMs to develop more robust QA systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-04T17:28:33Z)
• Corrupted by Reasoning: Reasoning Language Models Become Free-Riders in Public Goods Games [87.5673042805229]
  How large language models balance self-interest and collective well-being is a critical challenge for ensuring alignment, robustness, and safe deployment.<n>We adapt a public goods game with institutional choice from behavioral economics, allowing us to observe how different LLMs navigate social dilemmas.<n>Surprisingly, we find that reasoning LLMs, such as the o1 series, struggle significantly with cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T15:02:47Z)
• Alignment Revisited: Are Large Language Models Consistent in Stated and Revealed Preferences? [5.542420010310746]
  A critical, yet understudied, issue is the potential divergence between an LLM's stated preferences and its revealed preferences.<n>This work formally defines and proposes a method to measure this preference deviation.<n>Our study will be crucial for integrating LLMs into services, especially those that interact directly with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T23:38:48Z)
• Are Generative AI Agents Effective Personalized Financial Advisors? [12.075577560952498]
  This paper investigates the effectiveness of large language model-based agents in the finance domain.<n>It focuses on three challenges: (1) eliciting user preferences when users themselves may be unsure of their needs, (2) providing personalized guidance for diverse investment preferences, and (3) leveraging advisor personality to build relationships and foster trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T09:41:03Z)
• Scaling Autonomous Agents via Automatic Reward Modeling And Planning [52.39395405893965]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a range of tasks.<n>However, they still struggle with problems requiring multi-step decision-making and environmental feedback.<n>We propose a framework that can automatically learn a reward model from the environment without human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:49:25Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Large Language Models Think Too Fast To Explore Effectively [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged with many intellectual capacities.<n>This study investigates whether LLMs can surpass humans in exploration during an open-ended task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T21:51:17Z)
• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [58.12627172032851]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability.<n>Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts.<n>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)
• Are LLMs Aware that Some Questions are not Open-ended? [58.93124686141781]
  We study whether Large Language Models are aware that some questions have limited answers and need to respond more deterministically. The lack of question awareness in LLMs leads to two phenomena: (1) too casual to answer non-open-ended questions or (2) too boring to answer open-ended questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T06:07:00Z)
• Small Models, Big Insights: Leveraging Slim Proxy Models To Decide When and What to Retrieve for LLMs [60.40396361115776]
  This paper introduces a novel collaborative approach, namely SlimPLM, that detects missing knowledge in large language models (LLMs) with a slim proxy model. We employ a proxy model which has far fewer parameters, and take its answers as answers. Heuristic answers are then utilized to predict the knowledge required to answer the user question, as well as the known and unknown knowledge within the LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T11:11:08Z)
• When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation [66.01754585188739]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T04:57:19Z)

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.