Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the conversational patterns of Large Language Models (LLMs) acting as Artificial Moral Advisors (AMAs) by introducing three uncertainty-scaffolding strategies: Perspective-Multiplying, Tension-Preserving, and Process-Reflecting. The research reveals that different persona prompt formats influence the effectiveness of these strategies, with declarative personas capturing initial stance diversity and narrative personas facilitating more realistic belief revision. Key findings indicate that while all AMA strategies yield distinct conversational patterns, their impact lies more in the quality of engagement rather than the degree of stance revision achieved.
Uncertainty-scaffolding strategies in LLMs can significantly enhance the quality of moral dialogue, revealing that engagement matters more than mere stance revision.
LLMs are increasingly deployed as Artificial Moral Advisors (AMA) in a variety of contexts: what kind of conversational patterns should they display? In this paper, we study how AMA can help their interlocutors "stay with the uncertainty". We propose three modes of uncertainty (Perspective-Multiplying, Tension-Preserving, Process-Reflecting) and compare them against three control conditions (Baseline, Persuasive, Sycophantic). A user-agent LLM engages in a dialogue on an ethical dilemma with an AMA following a specific uncertainty strategy, and completes pre- and post-conversation questionnaires. We further examine the effect of two persona prompt formats (Declarative and Narrative). We found that (1) no single model dominates as a simulated user agent, with open models aligning with human ambiguity through between-persona divergence and closed models through within-persona hedging; (2) declarative personas better capture initial stance diversity while narrative personas show more realistic belief revision; (3) all six AMA strategies produce distinguishable conversational patterns; and (4) uncertainty strategies differ not in how much stance revision they produce, but in the quality of engagement they sustain.
