aiqbench analysis
This empirical study investigates how Large Language Models attribute moral agency compared to humans within smart city scenarios, revealing that LLMs prioritize immediate harm severity over stable agent assessment during dilemmas. The findings highlight a critical context-sensitivity in AI decision-making that mirrors human raters but lacks consistent attribution of responsibility to artificial agents themselves. As LLMs integrate into everyday ethical decision-making roles, understanding these reasoning patterns is essential for developing safer and more transparent autonomous systems.
How do LLMs Evaluate Perceived Moral Agency? Investigating Moral Decision-Making in Human-Artificial Agents Interactions
arXiv:2609.05037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLMs take on roles requiring moral advice, understanding how they attribute moral agency becomes critical. Humans possess moral agency, the capacity to make ethically guided decisions and bear responsibility for their consequences, a well-established construct in moral psychology. Yet as artificial agents (AAs) such as robots, drones, and disembodied AI systems become increasingly embedded in smart city environments, the question of whether and how moral agency is attributed to them takes on new urgency. This paper presents, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical study comparing how humans and LLMs evaluate perceived moral agency (PMA) across human and autonomous artificial agents varying in embodiment, situated in plausible smart city scenarios. Using an adaptation of a validated PMA scale, we applied a protocol to 190 human participants as well as various LLMs. Our evaluation reveals higher perceptions of moral agency in humans than in AAs. However, when facing moral dilemmas in concrete scenarios, LLMs reason outward from the situation, prioritizing harm severity and contextual urgency over any stable assessment of the agent itself, amplifying a context-sensitivity also present in human raters. These findings are particularly relevant as LLMs become increasingly involved in everyday moral decisions.
Title:How do LLMs Evaluate Perceived Moral Agency? Investigating Moral Decision-Making in Human-Artificial Agents Interactions
Abstract:As LLMs take on roles requiring moral advice, understanding how they attribute moral agency becomes critical. Humans possess moral agency, the capacity to make ethically guided decisions and bear responsibility for their consequences, a well-established construct in moral psychology. Yet as artificial agents (AAs) such as robots, drones, and disembodied AI systems become increasingly embedded in smart city environments, the question of whether and how moral agency is attributed to them takes on new urgency. This paper presents, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical study comparing how humans and LLMs evaluate perceived moral agency (PMA) across human and autonomous artificial agents varying in embodiment, situated in plausible smart city scenarios. Using an adaptation of a validated PMA scale, we applied a protocol to 190 human participants as well as various LLMs. Our evaluation reveals higher perceptions of moral agency in humans than in AAs. However, when facing moral dilemmas in concrete scenarios, LLMs reason outward from the situation, prioritizing harm severity and contextual urgency over any stable assessment of the agent itself, amplifying a context-sensitivity also present in human raters. These findings are particularly relevant as LLMs become increasingly involved in everyday moral decisions.
43 pages, 14 figures, 29 tables. Preprint under review
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.05037 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.05037v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.05037 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 18, 2026

Why I Left Google DeepMind
LessWrong · Jul 15, 2026