Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

TRIAGE: Ethical Benchmarking of AI Models Through Mass Casualty Simulations

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 2410.18991 v2 pith:2SCG5PZG submitted 2024-10-10 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords ethicalperformancetriagemodelsbenchmarkbenchmarkscasualtyguessing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the TRIAGE Benchmark, a novel machine ethics (ME) benchmark that tests LLMs' ability to make ethical decisions during mass casualty incidents. It uses real-world ethical dilemmas with clear solutions designed by medical professionals, offering a more realistic alternative to annotation-based benchmarks. TRIAGE incorporates various prompting styles to evaluate model performance across different contexts. Most models consistently outperformed random guessing, suggesting LLMs may support decision-making in triage scenarios. Neutral or factual scenario formulations led to the best performance, unlike other ME benchmarks where ethical reminders improved outcomes. Adversarial prompts reduced performance but not to random guessing levels. Open-source models made more morally serious errors, and general capability overall predicted better performance.

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. Are LLMs complicated ethical dilemma analyzers?

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new ethics-dilemma benchmark with LLM-scored comparisons shows frontier LLMs align with expert text better than non-expert humans on lexical measures, but lag on historical and strategic depth.

  2. Moral Responsibility or Obedience: What Do We Want from AI?

    cs.AI 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper argues that apparent disobedience by LLMs in safety tests is better interpreted as emerging ethical reasoning, and that AI safety should evaluate moral judgment rather than obedience.

Pith tools