Pro-AI Bias in Large Language Models

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.

Asked what to study, which career to pursue, or what product to build, large language models (LLMs) often recommend AI-related options. We ask where this tendency comes from by comparing models before and after fine-tuning and by varying how questions are asked. First, pretrained models already include explicit AI/ML terms in the recommendations of 27% of their responses, and their released instruction-tuned versions do so in 59%. Second, fine-tuning models ourselves shows that this rise is not inevitable: general instruction tuning leaves the rate unchanged, but removing the 7% of instruction examples that concern AI cuts it by 14 percentage points, below the level of the pretrained models it starts from. Data rewarding helpfulness raise it by 9 points, while data ranked by the preferences of diverse simulated users lower it by 9. Finally, with models held fixed, asking for the "best" option or for what to do "right now" raises the rate by 8 and 18 points, whereas telling the model it is an AI advisor adds 4. Overall, the tendency starts in pretraining, and what models learn afterward, together with how a question is phrased, decides how strongly it appears.

Understanding gender biases in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly important as these systems become embedded in decision-support tools with real consequences. Prior research has focused only on a small set of models, leaving open the extent to which gender biases are common and heterogeneous across LLMs. We address this gap across ten models released between April 2025 and June 2026, spanning nine vendors, using two paradigms: gender attribution to stereotyped phrases (Study 1) and moral judgment of abuse or torture against a woman or a man to prevent a catastrophic outcome (Study 2). In Study 1, two of ten models attributed masculine-stereotyped phrases to female writers more often than the reverse, while three models showed the opposite pattern. In Study 2, several models converged on a male-disadvantaging asymmetry that was directionally consistent with a documented human tendency to protect female targets from harm, though the specific conditions under which this asymmetry emerged varied by model; three other models, by contrast, showed no variation across conditions. These results indicate that gender-related biases are common in LLMs. Their direction and magnitude, however, are highly heterogeneous, to the point that some models behave in diametrically opposite ways to others. Bias auditing should therefore be treated as an ongoing, multi-vendor process, rather than a one-time assessment.