Reflections and New Directions for Human-Centered Large Language Models

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

While factual correctness and task-performance have been in focus of Large Language Model (LLM) research for a long time, the fundamental question of how human-like generated texts are on a linguistic level has been underexplored. From a corpus-linguistic perspective, language production is inherently context-dependent, with distinct communicative contexts giving rise to differences in frequencies and co-occurrence patterns of linguistic features. A text failing to adhere to these patterns can be content-wise correct, but still be unfavorable to human readers. In this work, we propose a context-aware evaluation framework in which human-likeness is assessed using a two-sample problem between the linguistic feature distribution of a human reference corpus for a given register and a corresponding LLM-generated corpus. We implement this framework using the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and the 67 lexico-grammatical features introduced by Biber, which are commonly applied in corpus linguistics. In our experiments, we compare seven instruction-tuned, open-source models across five English-language datasets spanning distinct registers against a human baseline. While across all tested setups, LLMs deviate from the human baseline, which models are closest to human language depends on the register and is not dictated by model size.

Current approaches to aligning large language models (LLMs) aggregate diverse human preferences into a single reward signal, effectively optimizing for a hypothetical ``average user'' who represents no real person particularly well. This position paper argues that LLMs should learn personalized, individual preferences rather than aggregated ones. We show that aggregation masks critical information about preference diversity, individual values, and contextual dependencies, which is a limitation both theoretically grounded in social choice theory and empirically evident across demographic groups. We analyze the rich structure that human preferences encode, survey technical approaches to personalization, and systematically address counterarguments on scalability, shared standards, and manipulation risk. While personalization introduces genuine safety challenges including filter bubbles, value lock-in, and psychological manipulation, we argue these are manageable through bounded personalization frameworks that preserve universal safety constraints while accommodating legitimate individual variation. We conclude with a concrete research and policy agenda for developing preference-aware models that respect both individual autonomy and collective safety.