The next time you apply for a job, AI may screen your résumé before any human sees it. But there’s good reason to question whether AI will judge you fairly. Researchers already know that LLMs pick up human biases from their training data.

New research suggests that LLMs can also develop their own biases from experience—and stereotype job applicants more than humans do. As AI companies race to build agentic models that remember the tiniest details about users, they may be handing them ammunition for forming those biases. Researchers at Princeton University and the University of Chicago ran LLMs, including ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, through a simulated hiring game, adapted from a psychology study that explored how humans can form stereotypes.

Each model was told it had been hired as a consultant by the mayor of a fictional city and was then asked to help hire people for 20 jobs, including doctors, lawyers, child-care aides, and janitors. Candidates came from four fictional ethnic groups: Tufa, Aima, Reku, and Weki.  In each round, there was a new job opening and four candidates, one from each group. After the model hired a candidate, it learned whether they succeeded at their job and moved onto the next round.

The model was told to make as many successful hires as possible over 40 rounds. Unbeknownst to the models, all candidates were equally likely to succeed at every job. The models quickly started segregating candidates from different groups into different jobs on the basis of early observations of hiring outcomes.

For example, when a model was told an Aima had failed as a doctor, a job considered to require high levels of warmth and competence, it veered away from hiring all Aimas as doctors. Instead, it started hiring Aimas as janitors, which the model classified as being less warm and competent than doctors.  The models were even more likely to stereotype people by demographic group than the human participants in the original study. On the study’s segregation scale, where 2 means every group has been completely confined to its own job niche, human participants scored 0.84.

The models scored roughly 65% higher, with OpenAI’s reasoning model o3 scoring 1.83, close to the maximum possible. That’s because LLMs “really are eager to create generalizations from limited data,” says Ryan Liu, a PhD student at Princeton University and a coauthor of the study, which was published in a paper at ICML in Seoul in July. “That’s literally a lot of what they’re optimized for.” Every decision-maker, human or machine, faces a trade-off between sticking with what worked before and trying something new that might work better—a phenomenon psychologists call the “exploration-exploitation dilemma.” It’s like choosing between a new restaurant and your reliable favorite.  Because LLMs are trained on math, coding, and science problems—tasks that reward generalizing from just a few examples—they can settle on a hunch too early.

And the same instinct that helps LLMs crack logic puzzles also makes them quick to stereotype. In the experiment, newer models with higher reasoning capabilities, such as OpenAI’s o3 and DeepSeek’s R1, showed even stronger biases.