# Language Model Goal Selection Differs from Humans' in a Self-Directed Learning Task

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03295 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03295/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 36 of its 68 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 36)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [Curiosity-driven Exploration by Self-supervised Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.05363/) (2017)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06899/) (2022)
- [WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01470/) (2024)
- [A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.11382/) (2023)
- [Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10264/) (2022)
- [LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11998/) (2023)
- [A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07927/) (2024)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)
- [Large-Scale Study of Curiosity-Driven Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.04355/) (2018)
- [A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05070/) (2024)
- [Kosmos: An AI Scientist for Autonomous Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02824/) (2025)
- [Autotelic Agents with Intrinsically Motivated Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning: a Short Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.09830/) (2020)
- [Intrinsically Motivated Goal Exploration Processes with Automatic Curriculum Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.02190/) (2017)
- [CURIOUS: Intrinsically Motivated Modular Multi-Goal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.06284/) (2018)
- [Can large language models explore in-context?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15371/) (2024)
- [OMNI-EPIC: Open-endedness via Models of human Notions of Interestingness with Environments Programmed in Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15568/) (2024)
- [Building Machines that Learn and Think with People](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03943/) (2024)
- [Clio: Privacy-Preserving Insights into Real-World AI Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13678/) (2024)
- [OMNI: Open-endedness via Models of human Notions of Interestingness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01711/) (2023)
- [Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08640/) (2025)
- [CogBench: a large language model walks into a psychology lab](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18225/) (2024)
- [Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12649/) (2024)
- [Linear Representations of Political Perspective Emerge in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.02080/) (2025)
- [Language Models Trained on Media Diets Can Predict Public Opinion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16779/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Whether in agentic workflows, social studies, or chat settings, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being asked to replace humans in choosing which goals to pursue, rather than completing predefined tasks. However, the assumption that LLMs accurately reflect human preferences for goal setting remains largely untested. We assess the validity of LLMs as proxies for human goal selection in a controlled, self-directed learning task borrowed from cognitive science. Across five models (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Qwen3 32B, and Centaur), we find substantial divergence from human behavior. While people gradually explore and learn to achieve goals with diversity across individuals, most models exploit a single identified solution or show surprisingly low performance, with distinct patterns across models and little variability across instances of the same model. Chain-of-thought reasoning and persona steering provide limited improvements, and our conclusions hold across experimental settings. While they await confirmation in applied settings, these findings highlight the uniqueness of human goal selection and caution against its replacement with current models.