Towards New Benchmark for AI Alignment & Sentiment Analysis in Socially Important Issues: A Comparative Study of Human and LLMs in the Context of AGI
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment
Abstract (arXiv)
As general-purpose artificial intelligence systems become increasingly integrated into society and are used for information seeking, content generation, problem solving, textual analysis, coding, and running processes, it is crucial to assess their long-term impact on humans. This research explores the sentiment of large language models (LLMs) and humans toward artificial general intelligence (AGI) using a Likert-scale survey. Seven LLMs, including GPT-4 and Bard, were analyzed and compared with sentiment data from three independent human sample populations. Temporal variations in sentiment were also evaluated over three consecutive days. The results show a diversity in sentiment scores among LLMs, ranging from 3.32 to 4.12 out of 5. GPT-4 recorded the most positive sentiment toward AGI, while Bard leaned toward a neutral sentiment. In contrast, the human samples showed a lower average sentiment of 2.97. The analysis outlines potential conflicts of interest and biases in the sentiment formation of LLMs, and indicates that LLMs could subtly influence societal perceptions. To address the need for regulatory oversight and culturally grounded assessments of AI systems, we introduce the Societal AI Alignment and Sentiment Benchmark (SAAS-AI), which leverages multidimensional prompts and empirically validated societal value frameworks to evaluate language model outputs across temporal, model, and multilingual axes. This benchmark is designed to guide policymakers and AI agencies, including within frameworks such as the EU AI Act, by providing robust, actionable insights into AI alignment with human values, public sentiment, and ethical norms at both national and international levels. Future research should further refine the operationalization of the SAAS-AI benchmark and systematically evaluate its effectiveness through comprehensive empirical testing.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. First posted on arXiv 5 Jan 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Pro-AI Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Pro-AI Bias in Large Language Models20 Jan 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023Who's Thinking? A Push for Human-Centered Evaluation of LLMs using the XAI Playbook
- 2026Sympathetic Framing: Evaluating AI Alignment across Sociodemographic Groups
- 2024AI Predicts AGI: Leveraging AGI Forecasting and Peer Review to Explore LLMs' Complex Reasoning Capabilities
- 2025AI shares emotion with humans across languages and cultures
- 2025Evaluating AI Alignment in LLMs: Output Analysis of Value Priorities Across 75 Models with Human Benchmarking
- 2025Reasoning Beyond Labels: Measuring LLM Sentiment in Low-Resource, Culturally Nuanced Contexts
- 2025Measuring Political Preferences in AI Systems: An Integrative Approach
- 2023Exploring Qualitative Research Using LLMs