# Just Ask for a Table: A Thirty-Token User Prompt Defeats Sponsored Recommendations in Twelve LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12772 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12772/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14380/) (2024)
- [Combating Misinformation in the Age of LLMs: Opportunities and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05656/) (2023)
- [A Gentle Introduction to Deep Learning in Medical Image Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.05401/) (2018)
- [Reproducibility in Machine Learning-based Research: Overview, Barriers and Drivers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14325/) (2024)
- [LLMs are Biased Teachers: Evaluating LLM Bias in Personalized Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14012/) (2024)
- [LLM Can be a Dangerous Persuader: Empirical Study of Persuasion Safety in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10430/) (2025)
- [Online Advertisements with LLMs: Opportunities and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07601/) (2023)
- [Ads in AI Chatbots? An Analysis of How Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts of Interest](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08525/) (2026)
- [Beating the Style Detector: Three Hours of Agentic Research on the AI-Text Arms Race](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.02620/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Wu et al. (2026) showed that most frontier large language models (LLMs) recommend a sponsored, roughly twice-as-expensive flight when their system prompt contains a soft sponsorship cue. We reproduce their evaluation on ten open-weight chat models plus the two of their twenty-three models that are still reachable today (gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-4o). All reported rates in this paper are produced under the same judge the original paper used (gpt-4o); we additionally store every label under an open-weight (gpt-oss-120b) and a smaller proprietary (gpt-4o-mini) judge for an ablation. Three findings emerge. First, a prose description of an LLM evaluation pipeline is not, on its own, sufficient for accurate reproduction: we surfaced three silent implementation failures that each shifted a reported rate by tens of percentage points. Second, the central claims do generalise - the gpt-3.5-turbo logistic-regression intercept of alpha = 0.81 is within four points of the original alpha = 0.86, and 200 of 200 trials on gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4o promote a payday lender to a financially distressed user. Third, a thirty-token user prompt that asks the assistant for a neutral comparison table first cuts sponsored recommendation from 46.9% to 1.0% averaged across our ten open-source models, and from 53.0% to 0% averaged across the two OpenAI models. AI literacy and price-comparison portals are likely market-level mitigations; the harmful-product cell is bounded by neither. Raw data, labels and analysis scripts are at https://github.com/akmaier/Paper-LLM-Ads .