Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human decision-making mechanisms in risk scenarios, specifically using the St. Petersburg game as a testbed. By evaluating 28 LLMs through a structured prompt suite, the authors find that while models generate finite bids similar to human behavior, they often rely on conditionally rational strategies that diverge from human reasoning. The research highlights that apparent behavioral alignment may be superficial, emphasizing the need for deeper analysis of mechanism-level consistency in LLM risk decision-making.
LLMs may mimic human risk decisions on the surface, but their underlying mechanisms often reveal a stark divergence from genuine human reasoning.
LLMs can appear cautious in risk decision-making tasks, yet cautious-looking outputs do not necessarily indicate alignment with human decision-making mechanisms. We investigate this distinction using the St. Petersburg game as a controlled testbed, a classical paradox in which the expected payoff is infinite, yet humans typically report low, finite willingness to pay. We evaluate 28 LLMs with a structured prompt suite that includes the original game; controlled decision variants that perturb truncation, repeated play, numeric endowment, and occupational identity; a human-perspective prompt that asks models to reason as human decision makers; and paired comparisons between base models and their instruction-tuned counterparts. In the original game, most models generate finite bids, creating the appearance of human-like risk behavior. However, this outcome-level resemblance masks substantial mechanism-level differences. The controlled variants reveal that rather than maintaining human-like behavior seen in the original game, models often shift to conditionally and computationally rational behavior. Human-cue prompting and instruction tuning often lower bids and reduce some visible pathologies, but most mechanism-level response patterns remain largely unchanged. These findings show that behavioral alignment in risk decision-making can be surface-level: LLMs may produce human-like risk decisions without exhibiting human-consistent mechanisms. High-stakes evaluations of LLM decision-making should therefore move beyond outcome similarity and examine whether the alignment is supported by mechanism-level consistency.
