How AI Systems Think About Education: Analyzing Latent Preference Patterns in Large Language Models

This article provides an introduction to the mathematical foundations and algorithmic frameworks used to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intentions, preferences, and values. We discuss standard alignment techniques, such as fine-tuning (SFT), reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF), and direct preference optimization (DPO). We also explore the theoretical underpinnings of learning from human preferences, drawing connections to inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) and discrete choice models. We present state-of-the-art algorithms in a tutorial style, discuss their advantages and limitations, and offer insights into practical implementation. Our exposition is intended to serve as a comprehensive resource for researchers and practitioners, providing both a foundational understanding of alignment methodologies and a framework for developing more robust and scalable alignment techniques.

LLMs increasingly excel on AI benchmarks, but doing so does not guarantee validity for downstream tasks. This study contrasts LLM alignment on benchmarks, downstream tasks, and, importantly the intended impact of those tasks. We evaluate the performance of leading LLMs (i.e., generative pre-trained base models) on difficult-to-verify tasks of the teaching and learning of schoolchildren. Across all LLMs, inter-model behaviors on disparate tasks correlate higher than they do with expert human behaviors on target tasks. These biases shared across LLMs are poorly aligned with downstream measures of teaching quality and often negatively aligned with the intended impact of student learning outcomes. Further, we find multi-model ensembles, both unanimous model voting and expert-weighting by benchmark performance, further exacerbate misalignment with learning. We measure that selection of LLM and/or prompting strategy only reliably accounts for $15\%$ of all measured misalignment error and that variation in misalignment error is shared across LLMs, suggesting that common pretraining accounts for much of the misalignment in these tasks. We demonstrate methods for robustly measuring alignment of complex tasks and provide unique insights into practical applications of LLMs in high-noise contexts.

Humor is one of the most culturally embedded and socially significant dimensions of human communication, yet it remains largely unexplored as a dimension of Large Language Model (LLM) alignment. In this study, five frontier language models play the same Cards Against Humanity games (CAH) as human players. The models select the funniest response from a slate of ten candidate cards across 9,894 rounds. While all models exceed the random baseline, alignment with human preference remains modest. More striking is that models agree with each other substantially more often than they agree with humans. We show that this preference is partly explained by systematic position biases and content preferences, raising the question whether LLM humor judgment reflects genuine preference or structural artifacts of inference and alignment.