LLMs as Oracles: Reliance on LLMs for Subjective Personal Questions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14849v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 23:47:13 GMT
• Title: LLMs as Oracles: Reliance on LLMs for Subjective Personal Questions
• Abstract summary: We characterize how people are turning to LLMs as oracles: all-knowing authorities on subjective personal questions.<n>Motivated by risks to users' autonomy and well-being, we develop a typology and methods to measure this form of AI reliance at scale.
• Score: 67.08243073804717
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We characterize how people are turning to LLMs as oracles: all-knowing authorities on subjective personal questions. Motivated by risks to users' autonomy and well-being, we develop a typology and LLM-based methods to measure this form of AI reliance at scale and understand how people are offloading judgment and decision-making to AI. Applying our typology to public usage data (68K prompts from WildChat and ThoughtTrace), we find that LLM-as-oracle use has increased over time (2023-2026) and is more prevalent among younger users. We further build a privacy-preserving data donation tool to analyze individuals' longitudinal usage data (140K prompts from 52 participants), identifying similar trends. People are often unaware of their own LLM-as-oracle use, and express dissatisfaction with this behavior after seeing our tool's analysis. Finally, we identify two drivers of LLM-as-oracle use: people's perceptions of AI and the behavior of AI models themselves, which motivate possible interventions to support users' self-deliberation.

Related papers

• Are Large Language Models Sensitive to the Motives Behind Communication? [9.246336669308665]
  Large language models (LLMs) and AI agents process information inherently framed by humans' intentions and incentives.<n>For LLMs to be effective in the real world, they too must critically evaluate content by factoring in the motivations of the source.<n>We employ controlled experiments from cognitive science to verify that LLMs' behavior is consistent with rational models of learning from motivated testimony.<n>We find that LLMs' inferences do not track the rational models nearly as closely -- partly due to additional information that distracts them from vigilance-relevant considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T15:35:00Z)
• Just-In-Time Objectives: A General Approach for Specialized AI Interactions [55.20968270133027]
  Large language models promise a broad set of functions, but when not given a specific objective, they default to milquetoast results such as drafting emails littered with cliches.<n>We demonstrate that inferring the user's in-the-moment objective, then rapidly optimizing for that singular objective, enables LLMs to produce tools, interfaces, and responses that are more responsive and desired.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T11:53:17Z)
• 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)
• Language Models Change Facts Based on the Way You Talk [38.44076602344941]
  We find that large language models (LLMs) are extremely sensitive to markers of identity in user queries.<n>These biases mean that the use of off-the-shelf LLMs for these applications may cause harmful differences in medical care, foster wage gaps, and create different political factual realities for people of different identities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T13:21:17Z)
• Addressing Bias in LLMs: Strategies and Application to Fair AI-based Recruitment [49.81946749379338]
  This work seeks to analyze the capacity of Transformers-based systems to learn demographic biases present in the data.<n>We propose a privacy-enhancing framework to reduce gender information from the learning pipeline as a way to mitigate biased behaviors in the final tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:29:43Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Secret Use of Large Language Model (LLM) [25.452542727215178]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have decentralized the responsibility for the transparency of AI usage. Our study investigated the contexts and causes behind the secret use of LLMs. We found that such secretive behavior is often triggered by certain tasks, transcending demographic and personality differences among users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-28T20:31:53Z)
• Advancing Annotation of Stance in Social Media Posts: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and Crowd Sourcing [2.936331223824117]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated text annotation in social media posts has garnered significant interest. We analyze the performance of eight open-source and proprietary LLMs for annotating the stance expressed in social media posts. A significant finding of our study is that the explicitness of text expressing a stance plays a critical role in how faithfully LLMs' stance judgments match humans'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:26:07Z)
• 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)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)

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.