Aligning to Illusions: Choice Blindness in Human and AI Feedback

Abstract

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) assumes annotator preferences reflect stable internal states. We challenge this through three experiments spanning the preference pipeline. In a human choice blindness study, 91% of surreptitiously swapped preferences go undetected, extending choice blindness to third-person evaluative comparison of unfamiliar text. Testing fifteen LLM judges as potential replacements, we find detection relies on shallow text matching rather than genuine self-monitoring: removing prior reasoning from context causes blindness to surge from near-zero to over 50%, while explicit social pressure induces near-universal compliance. In a dose-response experiment across two architectures from 86M to 2B parameters, one-sixth to one-third of labels must be corrupted before the reward signal halves, yet standard pairwise accuracy remains virtually unchanged. A Best-of-N evaluation confirms this translates to downstream policy degradation: at 50% corruption, reward-guided selection produces no improvement over random sampling, while the proxy model reports monotonically increasing scores. Together, these results reveal a preference construction problem: the signal entering RLHF is shaped by elicitation context in ways that neither human metacognition, LLM self-monitoring, nor standard evaluation metrics can detect.