Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in software engineering tasks such as requirements elicitation, design, and evaluation, raising critical questions regarding their alignment with human judgments on responsible AI values. This study investigates how closely LLMs' value preferences align with those of two human groups: a US-representative sample and AI practitioners. We evaluate 23 LLMs across four tasks: (T1) selecting key responsible AI values, (T2) rating their importance in specific contexts, (T3) resolving trade-offs between competing values, and (T4) prioritizing software requirements that embody those values. The results show that LLMs generally align more closely with AI practitioners than with the US-representative sample, emphasizing fairness, privacy, transparency, safety, and accountability. However, inconsistencies appear between the values that LLMs claim to uphold (Tasks 1-3) and the way they prioritize requirements (Task 4), revealing gaps in faithfulness between stated and applied behavior. These findings highlight the practical risk of relying on LLMs in requirements engineering without human oversight and motivate the need for systematic approaches to benchmark, interpret, and monitor value alignment in AI-assisted software development.

Private companies, public sector organizations, and academic groups have outlined ethical values they consider important for responsible artificial intelligence technologies. While their recommendations converge on a set of central values, little is known about the values a more representative public would find important for the AI technologies they interact with and might be affected by. We conducted a survey examining how individuals perceive and prioritize responsible AI values across three groups: a representative sample of the US population (N=743), a sample of crowdworkers (N=755), and a sample of AI practitioners (N=175). Our results empirically confirm a common concern: AI practitioners' value priorities differ from those of the general public. Compared to the US-representative sample, AI practitioners appear to consider responsible AI values as less important and emphasize a different set of values. In contrast, self-identified women and black respondents found responsible AI values more important than other groups. Surprisingly, more liberal-leaning participants, rather than participants reporting experiences with discrimination, were more likely to prioritize fairness than other groups. Our findings highlight the importance of paying attention to who gets to define responsible AI.