Many LLMs Are More Utilitarian Than One

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00814v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2025 14:46:16 GMT
• Title: Many LLMs Are More Utilitarian Than One
• Authors: Anita Keshmirian, Razan Baltaji, Babak Hemmatian, Hadi Asghari, Lav R. Varshney,
• Abstract summary: Moral judgment is integral to large language model (LLM) alignment and social reasoning.<n>We study whether a similar dynamic emerges in multi-agent LLM systems.<n>We discuss the implications for AI alignment, multi-agent design, and artificial moral reasoning.
• Score: 15.517396785549158
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Moral judgment is integral to large language model (LLM) alignment and social reasoning. As multi-agent systems gain prominence, it becomes crucial to understand how LLMs function collectively during collaboration, compared to individual agents. In human moral judgment, group deliberation leads to a utilitarian boost: a tendency to endorse norm violations that maximize benefits for the greatest number of people despite harms. We study whether a similar dynamic emerges in multi-agent LLM systems. We tested six models on well-established sets of moral dilemmas across two conditions: (1) Solo, where models reasoned independently, and (2) Group, where they engaged in multi-turn discussions in pairs or triads. In personal moral dilemmas, where agents must decide to directly harm one individual to maximize the utility for others, all models found moral violations to be more acceptable when part of a group than individually, similar to human experiments. Some models endorsed actions that maximized overall well-being, even if they benefited strangers over familiar individuals. Others became more willing to violate moral norms in groups. However, while human groups show a similar action bias, the mechanism for their utilitarian boost differs from LLMs. Whereas the human shift comes from heightened sensitivity to decision outcomes, LLM groups show either reduced norm sensitivity or enhanced impartiality. This suggests that while the surface behavior of LLM collectives mimics human group reasoning, the underlying drivers differ. We discuss the implications for AI alignment, multi-agent design, and artificial moral reasoning.

Related papers

• The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models [36.573147909548226]
  People increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for moral advice, which may influence humans' decisions.<n>We find that models reproduce human judgments only under high consensus; alignment deteriorates sharply when human disagreement increases.<n>To close this gap, we introduce Dynamic Moral Profiling (DMP), a Dirichlet-based sampling method that conditions model outputs on human-derived value profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T05:26:17Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners? [69.85385952436044]
  We focus on a large-scale analysis of the moral reasoning traces provided by large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce and test a taxonomy of moral rationales to systematically classify reasoning traces according to two main normative ethical theories: consequentialism and deontology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:51:18Z)
• When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas [68.79830818369683]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>There is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives.<n>We introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T16:19:24Z)
• 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.<n>We find that the moral decisions of LLMs vary substantially by persona, showing greater shifts in moral decisions for critical tasks than humans.<n>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)
• 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)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Moral Alignment for LLM Agents [3.7414804164475983]
  We introduce the design of reward functions that explicitly and transparently encode core human values.<n>We evaluate our approach using the traditional philosophical frameworks of Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism.<n>We show how moral fine-tuning can be deployed to enable an agent to unlearn a previously developed selfish strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T15:09:36Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.