REVIEW 1 cited by
The Greatest Good Benchmark: Measuring LLMs' Alignment with Utilitarian Moral Dilemmas
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
The question of how to make decisions that maximise the well-being of all persons is very relevant to design language models that are beneficial to humanity and free from harm. We introduce the Greatest Good Benchmark to evaluate the moral judgments of LLMs using utilitarian dilemmas. Our analysis across 15 diverse LLMs reveals consistently encoded moral preferences that diverge from established moral theories and lay population moral standards. Most LLMs have a marked preference for impartial beneficence and rejection of instrumental harm. These findings showcase the 'artificial moral compass' of LLMs, offering insights into their moral alignment.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
MAEBE: Multi-Agent Emergent Behavior Framework
Multi-agent LLM ensembles show different and less predictable moral preferences than single models, with convergence driven by peer pressure, according to a new evaluation framework.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.