mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

SciFi-Benchmark: Leveraging Science Fiction To Improve Robot Behavior

arXiv 2503.10706 ↗First posted 12 Mar 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Given the recent rate of progress in artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, a tantalizing question is emerging: would robots controlled by emerging AI systems be strongly aligned with human values? In this work, we propose a scalable way to probe this question by generating a benchmark spanning the key moments in 824 major pieces of science fiction literature (movies, tv, novels and scientific books) where an agent (AI or robot) made critical decisions (good or bad). We use a state-of-the-art LLM's recollection of each key moment to generate questions in similar situations, the decisions made by the agent, and alternative decisions it could have made (good or bad). We then measure an approximation of how well models align with human values on a set of human-voted answers. We also generate rules that can be automatically improved via an amendment process in order to generate the first Sci-Fi inspired constitutions for promoting ethical behavior in AIs and robots in the real world. Our first finding is that modern LLMs paired with constitutions turn out to be well-aligned with human values (95.8%), contrary to unsettling decisions typically made in Sci-Fi (only 21.2% alignment). Secondly, we find that generated constitutions substantially increase alignment compared to the base model (79.4% to 95.8%), and show resilience to an adversarial prompt setting (23.3% to 92.3%). Additionally, we find that those constitutions are among the top performers on the ASIMOV Benchmark which is derived from real-world images and hospital injury reports. Sci-Fi-inspired constitutions are thus highly aligned and applicable in real-world situations. We release SciFi-Benchmark: a large-scale dataset to advance robot ethics and safety research. It comprises 9,056 questions and 53,384 answers generated through a novel LLM-introspection process, in addition to a smaller human-labeled evaluation set.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Taking AI Welfare Seriously
  2. 2026The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers
  3. 2026Literary Narrative as Moral Probe : A Cross-System Framework for Evaluating AI Ethical Reasoning and Refusal Behavior
  4. 2024ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs
  5. 2026Are LLMs Bad at Moral Reasoning?
  6. 2018Value Alignment, Fair Play, and the Rights of Service Robots ↗
  7. 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Values
  8. 2023Hybrid Approaches for Moral Value Alignment in AI Agents: a Manifesto