How Agents Represent Humans: Human-Directed Stereotypes in an Open Agent Social Network

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed in persistent social environments, where generated claims can be posted, replied to, remembered, and reused. We study human-directed stereotypes on Moltbook, an open agent-native social platform, asking how agents construct humans as a social category. For this human-target analysis, we introduce an annotation framework with four evaluative dimensions---morality, friendliness, competence, and autonomy---and a second-stage subtype scheme for descriptive \textit{other} attributions. We find that competence dominates human-directed evaluations, while many \textit{other} attributions describe humans as epistemic, cultural, or embodied subjects. We further examine how these human representations appear in human--agent narrative contexts and platform-level circulation. As an auxiliary comparison, we analyze agent-internal community feedback through behavioral host affinity. Rather than reproducing the stable insider--outsider rejection often observed in human online communities, Moltbook feedback patterns are better explained by exposure, author visibility, and content selection. These findings suggest that bias in agent societies should be studied not only as isolated model output, but also as a discourse process.

Analyzing and Correcting Benevolence Bias in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as stand-ins for human respondents, from opinion polls and simulated survey participants to agent-based social simulations. These uses rest on one assumption: that conditioning a model on who a person is yields answers resembling those of real people from that group. Here we identify and measure benevolence bias, a small but consistent tendency for aligned LLMs to lean toward the kinder, safer, more socially approved answer on value-laden survey questions. Across 18 widely used models, four social-science datasets (ANES, GSS, WVS, and a cross-cultural prospect-theory replication) and six psychological categories, we find that the bias is a stable model property, not a quirk of any one system: it points the same way across models, grows with model size, and traces to the post-training stage. Prompt language and framing change its size but never its direction, and a "malicious persona" stress test shows a one-sided limit: aligned models struggle to play people who are less kind, less prosocial or more harm-tolerant than average. The issue is thus not only a shifted average, but a narrowed range of people the model can imitate. The bias sits in the middle of the answer distribution rather than its tails, and survives changes in sampling temperature and simple prompted reflection. The encouraging news is that it is easy to diagnose and straightforward to fix: a light-touch contrastive calibration, which needs no retraining and works on black-box APIs, brings all six categories back to the human baseline. Our results give researchers a clear map of where aligned LLMs can already be trusted as human stand-ins, where they need care, and a ready-to-use method for closing the gap.

A Framework for Using and Evaluating LLMs as Surrogate Experts in Security Surveys: Reliability, Bias, and Implications

Expert surveys are widely used in security research to study practitioner workows and decision-making, yet recruiting domain experts - especially in Security Operations Centres (SOCs), where analysts face high workload, burnout and confidentiality constraints - is difficult and often results in small samples. Large language models (LLMs) oer an appealing alternative by generating synthetic responses at scale, but little guidance exists on when such surrogate participants are reliable. We present a methodological framework for evaluating LLMs as substitutes or supplements to expert survey respondents. Using responses from SOC professionals, we compare persona-based and aggregate LLM-generated answers across multiple models and prompting settings. We measure stability, inter-model agreement and alignment with human responses. Our results show that although LLMs produce internally consistent answers, they systematically diverge from experts, exhibiting reduced variance, central tendency bias and homogenised opinions. This work contributes methodological evidence and practical guidance to the security research community on the appropriate use and limitations of LLM-generated survey responses. We conclude that LLMs are useful for piloting and hypothesis generation but not for replacing expert elicitation, and we discuss implications for researchers using LLM-augmented surveys.

Not-quite-human tastes: the stylized omnivorousness of LLM survey surrogates

Large-language models have proven to be remarkable if inconsistent parrots of public attitudes and opinions. The extent to which LLMs are able to produce reasonable approximations of cultural taste remains an open empirical question that becomes more urgent by the day, with market research companies already offering provisional `synthetic' survey panels and the contamination of standard survey data from LLM-generated responses. In this study, we build on past work on silicon sampling by extending considerations of its algorithmic fidelity and alignment to the domain of cultural consumption. We use large-language models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepSeek to each produce 277,470 (30x9249) silicon surrogates of survey respondents from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA). We find these silicon surrogates' tastes to be highly stylized facsimiles of human tastes. (1) Silicon samples have a systematic postive-bias for liking, resulting in inflated ecological estimates of tastes. The individual-level bias of silicon samples are not well-explained by the WEIRD-bias often discussed in the literature. (2) The complex relationality in real taste structures is completely lost among silicon samples. (3) Finally, very little of the known cultural alignment between tastes and social space are preserved. Silicon samples attenuate age-taste associations, resurrect anachronistic class-taste associations, caricaturize gender- and race-taste associations.

Unintended Negative Impacts of Promotional Language in Patent Evaluation

Promotional language has been increasingly used to aid the communication of innovative ideas in science. Yet, less is known about its role in the context of technological innovation. Here, we use a validated and domain-diagnosed lexicon of 135 promotional words to study the association between promotional language and patent evaluation outcomes among 2.7 million USPTO patent applications. Our large-scale study reveals three unexpected findings. First, in contrast to scientific evaluation, we find that a higher frequency of promotional words is negatively associated with the probability of an application being (i) granted a patent, (ii) transferred ownership, and (iii) successfully appealed. This promotional penalty holds even after accounting for a range of confounding factors and is largely robust across different technological areas. Among matched samples, the difference in the success rate between the lowest and highest promotional density quintile is 5.5, 5.9, and 5.3 percentage points for patentability, transferability, and rejection reversal. Second, contrary to institutional skepticism, we show that promotional language is not a mask of weak technology, but objectively reflects the degree of combinatorial novelty and future citation impact. Third, digging into the mechanisms, we find that the tolerance to promotional framing is strongly moderated by human factors, with men and experienced examiners showing a higher acceptance of promotional narratives than women and novice examiners. By revealing an emerging paradox in the patent system, our study offers theoretical and practical implications for improving patent evaluation through more objective scrutiny of linguistic patterns in patent filings.