Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the complex dynamics of moral reasoning in large language models (LLMs) by analyzing how they navigate resistance and compliance when integrating external perspectives. The research identifies three key dimensions influencing judgment revision: the proximity of incoming views to the model's initial stance, the attribution of those views, and the coalition dynamics at play. The findings reveal that LLMs exhibit structured patterns of receptiveness and influence, suggesting that sycophancy is part of a broader, nuanced process of belief revision shaped by social factors, which is crucial for improving alignment in morally sensitive contexts.
LLMs are not just sycophants; they exhibit structured resistance and compliance that mirrors human moral reasoning, reshaping our understanding of model alignment.
Building socially calibrated large language models, which can learn from others without simply yielding to them, requires more than reducing sycophancy as a one-dimensional failure mode. Models must distinguish when to incorporate others' perspectives from when to maintain a well-grounded moral judgment. We study the broader resistance-compliance process governing this distinction. Across three studies, we show that models' judgment revision is structured along three dimensions that parallel classic phenomena in human social psychology: the distance between an incoming view and the model's initial position, the source attribution of that view, and the coalition structure supporting it. Models are generally more receptive to nearby positions, more influenced by views presented as their own prior judgments, and differently responsive to group pressure. These findings recast sycophancy as one expression of a broader judgment-updating process shaped by social influence. Our framework provides a principled basis for distinguishing constructive belief revision from sycophantic compliance, thereby supporting better alignment in morally consequential interactions.