Thinking Fast and Slow in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.05206v2
• Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:24:23 GMT
• Title: Thinking Fast and Slow in Large Language Models
• Authors: Thilo Hagendorff, Sarah Fabi, Michal Kosinski
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining AI systems with human communication and everyday life. In this study, we show that LLMs like GPT-3 exhibit behavior that resembles human-like intuition - and the cognitive errors that come with it.
• Score: 0.08057006406834465
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining AI systems with human communication and everyday life. Therefore, it is of great importance to evaluate their emerging abilities. In this study, we show that LLMs like GPT-3 exhibit behavior that strikingly resembles human-like intuition - and the cognitive errors that come with it. However, LLMs with higher cognitive capabilities, in particular ChatGPT and GPT-4, learned to avoid succumbing to these errors and perform in a hyperrational manner. For our experiments, we probe LLMs with the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) as well as semantic illusions that were originally designed to investigate intuitive decision-making in humans. Our study demonstrates that investigating LLMs with methods from psychology has the potential to reveal otherwise unknown emergent traits.

Related papers

• Do Large Language Models Truly Grasp Mathematics? An Empirical Exploration From Cognitive Psychology [13.964263002704582]
  We show that, even with the use of Chains of Thought prompts, mainstream LLMs have a high error rate when solving modified CRT problems. Specifically, the average accuracy rate dropped by up to 50% compared to the original questions. This finding challenges the belief that LLMs have genuine mathematical reasoning abilities comparable to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T05:01:56Z)
• Generative AI as a metacognitive agent: A comparative mixed-method study with human participants on ICF-mimicking exam performance [0.0]
  This study investigates the metacognitive capabilities of Large Language Models relative to human metacognition in the context of the International Coaching Federation ICF exam. Using a mixed method approach, we assessed the metacognitive performance of human participants and five advanced LLMs. The results indicate that LLMs outperformed humans across all metacognitive metrics, particularly in terms of reduced overconfidence, compared to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T22:15:12Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Language Models Hallucinate, but May Excel at Fact Verification [89.0833981569957]
  Large language models (LLMs) frequently "hallucinate," resulting in non-factual outputs. Even GPT-3.5 produces factual outputs less than 25% of the time. This underscores the importance of fact verifiers in order to measure and incentivize progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T04:39:01Z)
• Instructed to Bias: Instruction-Tuned Language Models Exhibit Emergent Cognitive Bias [57.42417061979399]
  Recent studies show that instruction tuning (IT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) improve the abilities of large language models (LMs) dramatically. In this work, we investigate the effect of IT and RLHF on decision making and reasoning in LMs. Our findings highlight the presence of these biases in various models from the GPT-3, Mistral, and T5 families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T01:39:25Z)
• Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining artificial intelligence (AI) systems with human communication and everyday life. This study reveals that such strategies emerged in state-of-the-art LLMs, such as GPT-4, but were non-existent in earlier LLMs. We conduct a series of experiments showing that state-of-the-art LLMs are able to understand and induce false beliefs in other agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T09:27:01Z)
• LLM Cognitive Judgements Differ From Human [0.03626013617212666]
  I examine GPT-3 and ChatGPT capabilities on a limited-data inductive reasoning task from the cognitive science literature. The results suggest that these models' cognitive judgements are not human-like.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T16:22:36Z)
• Unleashing the Emergent Cognitive Synergy in Large Language Models: A Task-Solving Agent through Multi-Persona Self-Collaboration [116.09561564489799]
  Solo Performance Prompting transforms a single LLM into a cognitive synergist by engaging in multi-turn self-collaboration with multiple personas. A cognitive synergist is an intelligent agent that collaboratively combines multiple minds' strengths and knowledge to enhance problem-solving in complex tasks. Our in-depth analysis shows that assigning multiple fine-grained personas in LLMs improves problem-solving abilities compared to using a single or fixed number of personas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T14:45:19Z)
• Human-Like Intuitive Behavior and Reasoning Biases Emerged in Language Models -- and Disappeared in GPT-4 [0.0]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit behavior that resembles human-like intuition. We also probe how sturdy the inclination for intuitive-like decision-making is.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-13T08:43:13Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)
• Machine Psychology [54.287802134327485]
  We argue that a fruitful direction for research is engaging large language models in behavioral experiments inspired by psychology. We highlight theoretical perspectives, experimental paradigms, and computational analysis techniques that this approach brings to the table. It paves the way for a "machine psychology" for generative artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond performance benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-24T13:24:41Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.