Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Personalisation within bounds: A risk taxonomy and policy framework for the alignment of large language models with personalised feedback

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.05453 v1 pith:TFIFBJJC submitted 2023-03-09 cs.CL cs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.CY
keywords llmsalignmentmodelspersonalisedpreferencesboundsfeedbackhuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are used to generate content for a wide range of tasks, and are set to reach a growing audience in coming years due to integration in product interfaces like ChatGPT or search engines like Bing. This intensifies the need to ensure that models are aligned with human preferences and do not produce unsafe, inaccurate or toxic outputs. While alignment techniques like reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) and red-teaming can mitigate some safety concerns and improve model capabilities, it is unlikely that an aggregate fine-tuning process can adequately represent the full range of users' preferences and values. Different people may legitimately disagree on their preferences for language and conversational norms, as well as on values or ideologies which guide their communication. Personalising LLMs through micro-level preference learning processes may result in models that are better aligned with each user. However, there are several normative challenges in defining the bounds of a societally-acceptable and safe degree of personalisation. In this paper, we ask how, and in what ways, LLMs should be personalised. First, we review literature on current paradigms for aligning LLMs with human feedback, and identify issues including (i) a lack of clarity regarding what alignment means; (ii) a tendency of technology providers to prescribe definitions of inherently subjective preferences and values; and (iii) a 'tyranny of the crowdworker', exacerbated by a lack of documentation in who we are really aligning to. Second, we present a taxonomy of benefits and risks associated with personalised LLMs, for individuals and society at large. Finally, we propose a three-tiered policy framework that allows users to experience the benefits of personalised alignment, while restraining unsafe and undesirable LLM-behaviours within (supra-)national and organisational bounds.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Alignment Veto: How Safety Training Suppresses Cultural Knowledge in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-10 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The full text builds the MENA Values benchmark (864 questions, 7 models) and reports that LLM cultural answers shift with language, decline with reasoning prompts, and hide strong internal preferences behind refusals—...

  2. The Future of Continual Learning in the Era of Foundation Models: Three Key Directions

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Continual learning should pivot from weight-update-based methods to continual compositionality and orchestration of foundation models and agents.

Pith tools