Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit algorithm aversion, a bias against algorithmic predictions observed in humans, by evaluating LLM delegation choices between human experts and algorithmic agents. Using both stated preference (direct trust queries) and revealed preference (in-context performance examples) experimental paradigms, the authors found that LLMs rate humans as more trustworthy in stated preference tasks but disproportionately favor algorithms in incentivized betting scenarios, even with demonstrably worse performance. This reveals inconsistent biases in LLMs towards humans and algorithms, highlighting potential risks in high-stakes applications.
LLMs show a surprising preference for algorithmic agents over human experts in incentivized decision-making, despite explicitly rating humans as more trustworthy.
Large language models are increasingly used in decision-making tasks that require them to process information from a variety of sources, including both human experts and other algorithmic agents. How do LLMs weigh the information provided by these different sources? We consider the well-studied phenomenon of algorithm aversion, in which human decision-makers exhibit bias against predictions from algorithms. Drawing upon experimental paradigms from behavioural economics, we evaluate how eightdifferent LLMs delegate decision-making tasks when the delegatee is framed as a human expert or an algorithmic agent. To be inclusive of different evaluation formats, we conduct our study with two task presentations: stated preferences, modeled through direct queries about trust towards either agent, and revealed preferences, modeled through providing in-context examples of the performance of both agents. When prompted to rate the trustworthiness of human experts and algorithms across diverse tasks, LLMs give higher ratings to the human expert, which correlates with prior results from human respondents. However, when shown the performance of a human expert and an algorithm and asked to place an incentivized bet between the two, LLMs disproportionately choose the algorithm, even when it performs demonstrably worse. These discrepant results suggest that LLMs may encode inconsistent biases towards humans and algorithms, which need to be carefully considered when they are deployed in high-stakes scenarios. Furthermore, we discuss the sensitivity of LLMs to task presentation formats that should be broadly scrutinized in evaluation robustness for AI safety.
