# Cards Against LLMs: Benchmarking Humor Alignment in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08757 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08757/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers 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.
- Builds on 8 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [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)
- [Do Androids Laugh at Electric Sheep? Humor "Understanding" Benchmarks from The New Yorker Caption Contest](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06293/) (2022)
- [Help me write a poem: Instruction Tuning as a Vehicle for Collaborative Poetry Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13669/) (2022)
- [Humor in AI: Massive Scale Crowd-Sourced Preferences and Benchmarks for Cartoon Captioning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10522/) (2024)
- [Bridging the Creativity Understanding Gap: Small-Scale Human Alignment Enables Expert-Level Humor Ranking in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20356/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Cross-Model Humor Preference Modeling with Cards Against Humanity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.07481/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Humor is one of the most culturally embedded and socially significant dimensions of human communication, yet it remains largely unexplored as a dimension of Large Language Model (LLM) alignment. In this study, five frontier language models play the same Cards Against Humanity games (CAH) as human players. The models select the funniest response from a slate of ten candidate cards across 9,894 rounds. While all models exceed the random baseline, alignment with human preference remains modest. More striking is that models agree with each other substantially more often than they agree with humans. We show that this preference is partly explained by systematic position biases and content preferences, raising the question whether LLM humor judgment reflects genuine preference or structural artifacts of inference and alignment.