# Language Models Exhibit Inconsistent Biases Towards Algorithmic Agents and Human Experts

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22070 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.22070/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 37 of its 75 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13586/) (2021)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01405/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01219/) (2023)
- [DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.11698/) (2023)
- [Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10264/) (2022)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13848/) (2023)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)
- [Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05335/) (2023)
- [How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09009/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03514/) (2023)
- [LLM Agents Grounded in Self-Reports Enable General-Purpose Simulation of Individuals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10109/) (2024)
- [Large Language Model Alignment: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15025/) (2023)
- [Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03540/) (2022)
- [AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14752/) (2023)
- [From LLM Reasoning to Autonomous AI Agents: A Comprehensive Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19678/) (2025)
- [Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03738/) (2023)
- [AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01941/) (2023)
- [GeneGPT: Augmenting Large Language Models with Domain Tools for Improved Access to Biomedical Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09667/) (2023)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Large Language Models Through News Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.08412/) (2022)
- [Bad Actor, Good Advisor: Exploring the Role of Large Language Models in Fake News Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12247/) (2023)
- [How Far Are We on the Decision-Making of LLMs? Evaluating LLMs' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.11807/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are increasingly used in decision-making tasks that require them to process information from a variety of sources, including both human experts and other algorithmic agents. How do LLMs weigh the information provided by these different sources? We consider the well-studied phenomenon of algorithm aversion, in which human decision-makers exhibit bias against predictions from algorithms. Drawing upon experimental paradigms from behavioural economics, we evaluate how eightdifferent LLMs delegate decision-making tasks when the delegatee is framed as a human expert or an algorithmic agent. To be inclusive of different evaluation formats, we conduct our study with two task presentations: stated preferences, modeled through direct queries about trust towards either agent, and revealed preferences, modeled through providing in-context examples of the performance of both agents. When prompted to rate the trustworthiness of human experts and algorithms across diverse tasks, LLMs give higher ratings to the human expert, which correlates with prior results from human respondents. However, when shown the performance of a human expert and an algorithm and asked to place an incentivized bet between the two, LLMs disproportionately choose the algorithm, even when it performs demonstrably worse. These discrepant results suggest that LLMs may encode inconsistent biases towards humans and algorithms, which need to be carefully considered when they are deployed in high-stakes scenarios. Furthermore, we discuss the sensitivity of LLMs to task presentation formats that should be broadly scrutinized in evaluation robustness for AI safety.