Abstract
Large language model (LLM) alignment often assumes that the user interacting with a model is also the primary beneficiary of its behavior. Yet in many consequential settings, one person directs the system while another bears the consequences. We study this problem in caregiver-mediated healthcare, where parents, pet owners, and caregivers make decisions for children, animals, and older adults. We introduce an evidence-grounded benchmark spanning veterinary, pediatric, and older-adult care, and test whether AI advisors maintain appropriate care when users express clinically inferior preferences. Holding patient facts fixed, we vary stated care preferences and communication styles and evaluate both initial recommendations and multi-turn follow-up. Across frontier and open-weight models, inferior preferences substantially increase switching from appropriate to inappropriate care beyond neutral conversational drift and increase agreement with the requested action, while communication style alone has a smaller effect. These failures accumulate across turns, including on cases models initially answer correctly, and often carry moderate or severe potential harm. In matched eldercare cases, the effect of an inferior preference is similar whether it is expressed by the patient or by a caregiver. Together with models' limited tendency to elicit patient preferences in caregiver conversations, this suggests that current models are highly sensitive to expressed user preferences but less sensitive to whose preferences are represented and who bears the consequences. Our results expose a broader limitation of user-centric alignment in settings with multiple stakeholders.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14360
