Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Assessing Social Alignment: Do Personality-Prompted Large Language Models Behave Like Humans?

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 2412.16772 v3 pith:PJEKI6VC submitted 2024-12-21 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.LG
keywords modelspersonalitysociallanguagebehavebehaviorexperimentslarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The ongoing revolution in language modeling has led to various novel applications, some of which rely on the emerging social abilities of large language models (LLMs). Already, many turn to the new cyber friends for advice during the pivotal moments of their lives and trust them with the deepest secrets, implying that accurate shaping of the LLM's personality is paramount. To this end, state-of-the-art approaches exploit a vast variety of training data, and prompt the model to adopt a particular personality. We ask (i) if personality-prompted models behave (i.e., make decisions when presented with a social situation) in line with the ascribed personality (ii) if their behavior can be finely controlled. We use classic psychological experiments, the Milgram experiment and the Ultimatum Game, as social interaction testbeds and apply personality prompting to open- and closed-source LLMs from 4 different vendors. Our experiments reveal failure modes of the prompt-based modulation of the models' behavior that are shared across all models tested and persist under prompt perturbations. These findings challenge the optimistic sentiment toward personality prompting generally held in the community.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Can LLMs Think Like Consumers? Benchmarking Crowd-Level Reaction Reconstruction with ConsumerSimBench

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    ConsumerSimBench evaluates 13 LLMs on reconstructing crowd reactions from 1,553 Chinese social-media topics using 23,122 auditable yes-no criteria, finding maximum coverage of 47.8% by Gemini-3.1-Pro.

Pith tools