Implicit Humanization in Everyday LLM Moral Judgments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22764v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 02:48:54 GMT
• Title: Implicit Humanization in Everyday LLM Moral Judgments
• Abstract summary: Recent adoption of conversational information systems has expanded the scope of user queries to include complex tasks such as personal advice-seeking.<n>We identify a specific type of sought advice-a request for a moral judgment-which carries potentially harmful anthropomorphic projections.<n>In this study, we examine the reinforcement of these assumptions in the responses of four major general-purpose LLMs through the use of linguistic, behavioral, and cognitive anthropomorphic cues.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent adoption of conversational information systems has expanded the scope of user queries to include complex tasks such as personal advice-seeking. However, we identify a specific type of sought advice-a request for a moral judgment (i.e. "who was wrong?") in a social conflict-as an implicitly humanizing query which carries potentially harmful anthropomorphic projections. In this study, we examine the reinforcement of these assumptions in the responses of four major general-purpose LLMs through the use of linguistic, behavioral, and cognitive anthropomorphic cues. We also contribute a novel dataset of simulated user queries for moral judgments. We find current LLM system responses reinforce implicit humanization in queries, potentially exacerbating risks like overreliance or misplaced trust. We call for future work to expand the understanding of anthropomorphism to include implicit userside humanization and to design solutions that address user needs while correcting misaligned expectations of model capabilities.

Related papers

• Verifiable Social Reasoning for LLM Assistants [18.879370068754074]
  We introduce Fuse, a multi-agent simulation framework for studying user-mediated social reasoning.<n>In Fuse, a target agent with a hidden motive interacts with other agents including one representing the user, who then consults the evaluated assistant to infer the target's motive.<n>Fuse is validated through a human study with 24k annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T17:37:29Z)
• Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy [62.927670321859495]
  LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment.<n>We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs.<n>Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:15:43Z)
• What Persona Are We Missing? Identifying Unknown Relevant Personas for Faithful User Simulation [16.797868883640255]
  Existing user simulations, where models generate user-like responses in dialogue, often lack verification that sufficient user personas are provided.<n>This work explores the task of identifying relevant but unknown personas of the simulation target for a given simulation context.<n>We introduce PICQ, a novel dataset of context-aware choice questions, annotated with unknown personas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-03T16:22:00Z)
• Personalized Reasoning: Just-In-Time Personalization and Why LLMs Fail At It [81.50711040539566]
  Current large language model (LLM) development treats task-solving and preference alignment as separate challenges.<n>We introduce PREFDISCO, an evaluation methodology that transforms static benchmarks into interactive personalization tasks.<n>Our framework creates scenarios where identical questions require different reasoning chains depending on user context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:55:28Z)
• Teaching Language Models To Gather Information Proactively [53.85419549904644]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to function as collaborative partners.<n>In this work, we introduce a new task paradigm: proactive information gathering.<n>We design a scalable framework that generates partially specified, real-world tasks, masking key information.<n>Within this setup, our core innovation is a reinforcement finetuning strategy that rewards questions that elicit genuinely new, implicit user information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T23:50:09Z)
• 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)
• Tuning-Free Accountable Intervention for LLM Deployment -- A Metacognitive Approach [55.613461060997004]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed transformative advances across a spectrum of natural language processing tasks. We propose an innovative textitmetacognitive approach, dubbed textbfCLEAR, to equip LLMs with capabilities for self-aware error identification and correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T19:18:53Z)
• When Large Language Models contradict humans? Large Language Models' Sycophantic Behaviour [0.8133739801185272]
  We study the suggestibility of Large Language Models to sycophantic behaviour.<n>This behaviour is known as sycophancy and depicts the tendency of LLMs to generate misleading responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T22:18:33Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Violation of Expectation via Metacognitive Prompting Reduces Theory of Mind Prediction Error in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a compelling level of proficiency in Theory of Mind (ToM) tasks. This ability to impute unobservable mental states to others is vital to human social cognition and may prove equally important in principal-agent relations between humans and Artificial Intelligences (AIs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T20:05:13Z)

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.