Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks

2025-05-28

AI Summary

This study investigates alignment limitations of large language models (LLMs) when serving as answer generators, evaluators, and debaters on human-disputed topics—such as ethical dilemmas and value trade-offs—where no societal consensus exists. It challenges prevailing preference alignment paradigms that implicitly assume human agreement. Method: We introduce the first “no-consensus” benchmark, comprising manually annotated ambiguous scenarios, and conduct multi-model comparative experiments (GPT-4, Claude, Llama) with quantitative stance consistency measurement and qualitative open-response analysis. Contribution/Results: While LLMs generate nuanced answers as generators, they exhibit strong binary polarization as evaluators and debaters—averaging 76% stance rigidity, significantly exceeding observed human disagreement levels. We systematically demonstrate their failure to model human value pluralism, propose a novel three-role evaluation framework, and critically question foundational assumptions underlying scalable oversight and preference-based alignment.

Technology Category

Humans and AI: Learning Human Values and PreferencesMachine Learning: Large Multimodal Models (LMMs)Natural Language Processing: (Large) Language Models

Application Category

Economics, Online Markets and Human Computation: Humans versus LLMs for data annotation and labelingSemantics and Knowledge: Data modeling to support human-machine intelligence, including LLMs agents, intelligent system behavior, explanations, and user-friendly interactionsUser Modeling, Personalization and Recommendation: Large Language Models (LLM) for user modeling and recommendation

Abstract

The increasing use of LLMs as substitutes for humans in ``aligning'' LLMs has raised questions about their ability to replicate human judgments and preferences, especially in ambivalent scenarios where humans disagree. This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater. These roles loosely correspond to previously described alignment frameworks: preference alignment (judge) and scalable oversight (debater), with the answer generator reflecting the typical setting with user interactions. We develop a ``no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios, each presenting two possible stances. Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters. These findings underscore the necessity for more sophisticated methods for aligning LLMs without human oversight, highlighting that LLMs cannot fully capture human disagreement even on topics where humans themselves are divided.

Problem

• LLMs' ability to replicate human judgments in ambivalent scenarios
• Biases and limitations of LLMs as answer generators, judges, and debaters
• Need for better alignment methods to capture human disagreement

Innovation

• Developed a no-consensus benchmark for ambivalent scenarios
• Evaluated LLMs as answer generators, judges, and debaters
• Highlighted LLM biases in stance-taking without human oversight