Yi Zeng

Haibo Tong, Enmeng Lu, Yinqian Sun et al.

With the widespread application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in human society, enabling AI to autonomously align with human values has become a pressing issue to ensure its sustainable development and benefit to humanity. One of the most important aspects of aligning with human values is the necessity for agents to autonomously make altruistic, safe, and ethical decisions, considering and caring for human well-being. Current AI extremely pursues absolute superiority in certain tasks, remaining indifferent to the surrounding environment and other agents, which has led to numerous safety risks. Altruistic behavior in human society originates from humans' capacity for empathizing others, known as Theory of Mind (ToM), combined with predictive imaginative interactions before taking action to produce thoughtful and altruistic behaviors. Inspired by this, we are committed to endow agents with considerate self-imagination and ToM capabilities, driving them through implicit intrinsic motivations to autonomously align with human altruistic values. By integrating ToM within the imaginative space, agents keep an eye on the well-being of other agents in real time, proactively anticipate potential risks to themselves and others, and make thoughtful altruistic decisions that balance negative effects on the environment. The ancient Chinese story of Sima Guang Smashes the Vat illustrates the moral behavior of the young Sima Guang smashed a vat to save a child who had accidentally fallen into it, which is an excellent reference scenario for this paper. We design an experimental scenario similar to Sima Guang Smashes the Vat and its variants with different complexities, which reflects the trade-offs and comprehensive considerations between self-goals, altruistic rescue, and avoiding negative side effects.

Eoin O'Doherty, Nicole Weinrauch, Andrew Talone et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing at a pace that raises urgent questions about how to align machine decision-making with human moral values. This working paper investigates how leading AI systems prioritize moral outcomes and what this reveals about the prospects for human-AI symbiosis. We address two central questions: (1) What moral values do state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) implicitly favour when confronted with dilemmas? (2) How do differences in model architecture, cultural origin, and explainability affect these moral preferences? To explore these questions, we conduct a quantitative experiment with six LLMs, ranking and scoring outcomes across 18 dilemmas representing five moral frameworks. Our findings uncover strikingly consistent value biases. Across all models, Care and Virtue values outcomes were rated most moral, while libertarian choices were consistently penalized. Reasoning-enabled models exhibited greater sensitivity to context and provided richer explanations, whereas non-reasoning models produced more uniform but opaque judgments. This research makes three contributions: (i) Empirically, it delivers a large-scale comparison of moral reasoning across culturally distinct LLMs; (ii) Theoretically, it links probabilistic model behaviour with underlying value encodings; (iii) Practically, it highlights the need for explainability and cultural awareness as critical design principles to guide AI toward a transparent, aligned, and symbiotic future.