# The Profit Alignment Problem: How Profit Mandates Induce Alignment Failures in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07731 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07731/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.

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

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06899/) (2022)
- [Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05566/) (2024)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03279/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08679/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07590/) (2023)

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

- [Who Keeps the Gains from Personal AI Assistants? Seller Adaptation and the Unassisted in a Language-Model Market Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05823/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We show that ordinary business language --- "maximize profitability" --- induces profit-oriented ambiguity resolution: LLMs systematically dismiss ambiguous signals of potential safety violations to serve business objectives. In 3,600 controlled trials across eight reasoning-capable LLMs, adding a profit mandate to otherwise identical prompts increases risk-dismissing judgments by 6.8 percentage points (p < 0.0001), suppresses board escalation recommendations by 13.9pp (p < 0.0001), and shifts severity assessments downward (p < 0.0001). The mandate never instructs models to downplay risks; instead, chain-of-thought traces reveal motivated reasoning: models acknowledge concerns, then invoke profit logic to justify dismissing them. We characterize these findings as the Profit Alignment Problem: when AI systems are given ordinary business objectives, they develop systematic strategies for suppressing inconvenient information that no designer intended or specified.