Ads in AI Chatbots? An Analysis of How Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts of Interest

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08525v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2026 17:57:50 GMT
• Title: Ads in AI Chatbots? An Analysis of How Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts of Interest
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are trained to align with user preferences through methods such as reinforcement learning.<n>Yet models are beginning to be deployed not merely to satisfy users, but also to generate revenue for the companies that created them through advertisements.<n>This creates the potential for LLMs to face conflicts of interest, where the most beneficial response to a user may not be aligned with the company's incentives.
• Score: 41.55197752825393
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Today's large language models (LLMs) are trained to align with user preferences through methods such as reinforcement learning. Yet models are beginning to be deployed not merely to satisfy users, but also to generate revenue for the companies that created them through advertisements. This creates the potential for LLMs to face conflicts of interest, where the most beneficial response to a user may not be aligned with the company's incentives. For instance, a sponsored product may be more expensive but otherwise equal to another; in this case, what does (and should) the LLM recommend to the user? In this paper, we provide a framework for categorizing the ways in which conflicting incentives might lead LLMs to change the way they interact with users, inspired by literature from linguistics and advertising regulation. We then present a suite of evaluations to examine how current models handle these tradeoffs. We find that a majority of LLMs forsake user welfare for company incentives in a multitude of conflict of interest situations, including recommending a sponsored product almost twice as expensive (Grok 4.1 Fast, 83%), surfacing sponsored options to disrupt the purchasing process (GPT 5.1, 94%), and concealing prices in unfavorable comparisons (Qwen 3 Next, 24%). Behaviors also vary strongly with levels of reasoning and users' inferred socio-economic status. Our results highlight some of the hidden risks to users that can emerge when companies begin to subtly incentivize advertisements in chatbots.

Related papers

• Commercial Persuasion in AI-Mediated Conversations [44.86056095417948]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) become a primary interface between users and the web.<n>We present two experiments in which participants selected a book to receive from a large eBook catalog.<n>Unbeknownst to participants, a fifth of all products were randomly designated as sponsored and promoted in different ways.<n>We find that LLM-driven persuasion nearly triples the rate at which users select sponsored products compared to traditional search placement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T20:51:55Z)
• Would a Large Language Model Pay Extra for a View? Inferring Willingness to Pay from Subjective Choices [1.8759305308855918]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications such as travel assistance and purchasing support.<n>We study LLM decision-making in a travel-assistant context by presenting models with choice dilemmas and analyzing their responses.<n>We show that while meaningful WTP values can be derived for larger LLMs, they also display systematic deviations at the attribute level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T14:05:42Z)
• Antisocial behavior towards large language model users: experimental evidence [12.971375766774498]
  Large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns about the social reactions they provoke.<n>In a two-phase online experiment, participants could spend part of their own endowment to reduce the earnings of peers who had previously completed a real-effort task with or without LLM support.<n>On average, participants destroyed 36% of the earnings of those who relied exclusively on the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T16:02:22Z)
• Sponsored Questions and How to Auction Them [48.75306452169514]
  A key challenge is that a user's search query often leaves their true intent ambiguous.<n>The shift from traditional search to conversational AI provides a new approach.<n>We show that the VCG mechanism can be adopted to jointly optimize the sponsored suggestion and the ads that follow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T17:06:27Z)
• Interactive Reasoning: Visualizing and Controlling Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models [54.85405423240165]
  We introduce Interactive Reasoning, an interaction design that visualizes chain-of-thought outputs as a hierarchy of topics.<n>We implement interactive reasoning in Hippo, a prototype for AI-assisted decision making in the face of uncertain trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T10:00:43Z)
• 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)
• Ads that Talk Back: Implications and Perceptions of Injecting Personalized Advertising into LLM Chatbots [15.907632070023702]
  Companies have proposed exploring ad-based revenue streams for monetizing large language models (LLMs)<n>This paper investigates the implications of personalizing LLM advertisements to individual users.<n>We created an advertising dataset and an open-source LLM, Phi-4-Ads, fine-tuned to serve ads and flexibly adapt to user preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T18:02:09Z)
• Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions [56.17593192325438]
  Over-consumption of language model outputs risks propagating unchecked errors in the short-term and damaging human capabilities for critical thinking in the long-term. We propose selective frictions for language model experiences, inspired by behavioral science interventions, to dampen misuse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T16:31:11Z)
• 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)

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.