大型语言模型（LLMs）越来越多地被用作知识获取的工具，但用户无法有效指定他们希望信息如何呈现。当用户请求LLMs“引用可信来源”、“表达适当的不确定性”或“包含多个视角”时，他们发现当前界面没有结构化的方式来表达这些偏好。结果便是提示共享的民间传说：社区特定的复制提示通过信任关系传播，而非基于实际效果。我们提出了知识对齐框架，这是从认识论哲学文献中衍生出的一组十个知识传递挑战，涉及证据质量评估和证词依赖校准等问题。该框架作为用户需求与系统能力之间的结构化中介，创建了一种通用词汇，以弥合用户想要的内容与系统交付内容之间的差距。通过对在线社区中共享的定制提示和个人化策略进行主题分析，我们发现用户开发了复杂的解决方法来应对每一项挑战。然后，我们通过对其已记录政策和产品功能的内容分析，将我们的框架应用于两个主要的模型提供商——OpenAI和Anthropic。我们的分析表明，尽管这些提供商部分解决了我们所识别的挑战，但他们未能建立足够的机制来指定认识论偏好，缺乏关于如何实现偏好的透明度，并且没有提供任何验证工具来确认是否遵循了偏好。对于AI开发者而言，知识对齐框架为支持多样化知识传递方法提供了具体的指导；对于用户而言，它致力于实现与他们具体需求相一致的信息传递，而不是默认采用一刀切的方法。

LLMs increasingly serve as tools for knowledge acquisition, yet users cannot effectively specify how they want information presented. When users request that LLMs "cite reputable sources," "express appropriate uncertainty," or "include multiple perspectives," they discover that current interfaces provide no structured way to articulate these preferences. The result is prompt sharing folklore: community-specific copied prompts passed through trust relationships rather than based on measured efficacy. We propose the Epistemic Alignment Framework, a set of ten challenges in knowledge transmission derived from the philosophical literature of epistemology, concerning issues such as evidence quality assessment and calibration of testimonial reliance. The framework serves as a structured intermediary between user needs and system capabilities, creating a common vocabulary to bridge the gap between what users want and what systems deliver. Through a thematic analysis of custom prompts and personalization strategies shared on online communities where these issues are actively discussed, we find users develop elaborate workarounds to address each of the challenges. We then apply our framework to two prominent model providers, OpenAI and Anthropic, through content analysis of their documented policies and product features. Our analysis shows that while these providers have partially addressed the challenges we identified, they fail to establish adequate mechanisms for specifying epistemic preferences, lack transparency about how preferences are implemented, and offer no verification tools to confirm whether preferences were followed. For AI developers, the Epistemic Alignment Framework offers concrete guidance for supporting diverse approaches to knowledge; for users, it works toward information delivery that aligns with their specific needs rather than defaulting to one-size-fits-all approaches.