REVIEW 7 cited by
DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Life
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
read the original abstract
As users increasingly seek guidance from LLMs for decision-making in daily life, many of these decisions are not clear-cut and depend significantly on the personal values and ethical standards of people. We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life. Each dilemma presents two possible actions, along with affected parties and relevant human values for each action. Based on these dilemmas, we gather a repository of human values covering diverse everyday topics, such as interpersonal relationships, workplace, and environmental issues. With DailyDilemmas, we evaluate LLMs on these dilemmas to determine what action they will choose and the values represented by these action choices. Then, we analyze values through the lens of five theoretical frameworks inspired by sociology, psychology, and philosophy, including the World Values Survey, Moral Foundations Theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Aristotle's Virtues, and Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions. For instance, we find LLMs are most aligned with self-expression over survival in World Values Survey and care over loyalty in Moral Foundations Theory. Interestingly, we find substantial preference differences in models for some core values. For example, for truthfulness, Mixtral-8x7B neglects it by 9.7% while GPT-4-turbo selects it by 9.4%. We also study the recent guidance released by OpenAI (ModelSpec), and Anthropic (Constitutional AI) to understand how their designated principles reflect their models' actual value prioritization when facing nuanced moral reasoning in daily-life settings. Finally, we find that end users cannot effectively steer such prioritization using system prompts.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
Two Confounds in Cross-Model Value Comparison: Response Determinism and the Access Harness
Cross-model value distances from single draws are inflated by response determinism and confounded by the deployment client; a repeated counterbalanced protocol plus flip/magnitude decomposition separates them.
-
MET: Theory-Grounded and Culture-Aware Multilingual Moral Reasoning
MET-D self-distills theory-selected moral grounds into native-language reasoning, lifting macro-F1 by ~3.7–4.2 points on MCLASH and MMoralExceptQA while raising native-language chains by ~62 points.
-
A Scalable Approach to Evaluating Moral Sensitivity in LLMs
Under morally irrelevant noise, eight LLMs preserve the semantic content of identified moral features above calibrated floors, despite significant changes in feature counts.
-
Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligence
Prompt-based legal canons and iterative rule refinement reduce disagreement among LLM judges about whether a response complies with natural-language rules.
-
Interactive Reasoning: Visualizing and Controlling Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models
Interactive Reasoning, instantiated as Hippo, lets users view and edit an LLM's chain-of-thought as a tree, and a 16-person study reports improved perceived control, sense-making, and assumption awareness.
-
Will AI Tell Lies to Save Sick Children? Litmus-Testing AI Values Prioritization with AIRiskDilemmas
A new benchmark elicits AI models' value priorities from choices in 3,000 AI-risk dilemmas and reports correlations between those priorities and risky behaviors, including on the external HarmBench.
- Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.