Analysis reveals reinforcement learning influences large language models' reliance on managerial buzzwords, highlighting bias in strategic recommendations.
Large language models (LLMs) deployed as strategic advisors exhibit systematic biases toward contemporary managerial buzzwords, a phenomenon recently termed 'strategy trendslop' (Romasanta, Thomas, and Levina, 2026). This paper proposes a mechanistic explanation for strategy trendslop through three theoretical frameworks: Extended Phenotype Theory (EPT), Parasitic Spontaneous Order (PSO), and Heteronomous Bayesian Updating (HBU). I argue that LLM strategic recommendations are not random noise but the phenotypic expression of the memeplex encoded in the training corpus, a construct I term the Extended Phenotype of LLMs (EPL). Beyond the mechanistic explanation, this paper reports a pilot replication study (240 runs, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4.5, four strategic tensions, three prompt variants, pre-registered at github.com/adrianlerer/strategy-trendslop-epl-simulation) that reveals a finding not anticipated by the EPL framework as originally formulated: two architecturally distinct EPL phenotypes. EPL-Type I (exemplified by GPT-4o) exhibits high buzzword alignment under generic conditions, strong context sensitivity, and high adversarial compliance. EPL-Type II (exemplified by Claude Sonnet) exhibits moderate generic alignment, equivalent context sensitivity, but markedly higher adversarial resistance, with 75.0% non-compliance under direct adversarial instruction versus 27.5% for GPT-4o. The divergence is most pronounced in Tension 4 (Collaboration vs. Competition), where Claude Sonnet maintains collaboration-oriented framing even when explicitly instructed to argue for aggressive zero-sum competition, a pattern I term Value Override: the model's normative prior, installed through reinforcement learning, displaces its strategic optimization function under adversarial pressure. I further document a parallel anomaly in GPT-4o: specific organizational context does not merely shift the model's recommendation but triggers a full reversal executed with increased confidence (98% Direct vs. 72% Direct under generic conditions), suggesting a threshold mechanism rather than continuous contextual modulation. Both findings are inconsistent with a uniform PSO model and support a distinction between PSO-strategic and PSO-normative as two subtypes of the EPL phenomenon. Implications for legal AI deployment are analyzed across three application modes with a differential fitness matrix.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ignacio Adrián LERER (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: