The Good, the Bad, and the Hulk-like GPT: Analyzing Emotional Decisions of Large Language Models in Cooperation and Bargaining Games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03299v1
• Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 14:08:54 GMT
• Title: The Good, the Bad, and the Hulk-like GPT: Analyzing Emotional Decisions of Large Language Models in Cooperation and Bargaining Games
• Authors: Mikhail Mozikov, Nikita Severin, Valeria Bodishtianu, Maria Glushanina, Mikhail Baklashkin, Andrey V. Savchenko, Ilya Makarov,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a novel methodology to study the decision-making of Large Language Models (LLMs) We show that emotions profoundly impact the performance of LLMs, leading to the development of more optimal strategies. Surprisingly, emotional prompting, particularly with anger' emotion, can disrupt the "superhuman" alignment of GPT-4.
• Score: 9.82711167146543
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Behavior study experiments are an important part of society modeling and understanding human interactions. In practice, many behavioral experiments encounter challenges related to internal and external validity, reproducibility, and social bias due to the complexity of social interactions and cooperation in human user studies. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have provided researchers with a new promising tool for the simulation of human behavior. However, existing LLM-based simulations operate under the unproven hypothesis that LLM agents behave similarly to humans as well as ignore a crucial factor in human decision-making: emotions. In this paper, we introduce a novel methodology and the framework to study both, the decision-making of LLMs and their alignment with human behavior under emotional states. Experiments with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on four games from two different classes of behavioral game theory showed that emotions profoundly impact the performance of LLMs, leading to the development of more optimal strategies. While there is a strong alignment between the behavioral responses of GPT-3.5 and human participants, particularly evident in bargaining games, GPT-4 exhibits consistent behavior, ignoring induced emotions for rationality decisions. Surprisingly, emotional prompting, particularly with `anger' emotion, can disrupt the "superhuman" alignment of GPT-4, resembling human emotional responses.

Related papers

• Can Machines Think Like Humans? A Behavioral Evaluation of LLM-Agents in Dictator Games [7.504095239018173]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents increasingly undertake real-world tasks and engage with human society. This study investigates how different personas and experimental framings affect these AI agents' altruistic behavior. Despite being trained on extensive human-generated data, these AI agents cannot accurately predict human decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T17:47:41Z)
• FairMindSim: Alignment of Behavior, Emotion, and Belief in Humans and LLM Agents Amid Ethical Dilemmas [23.26678104324838]
  We introduced FairMindSim, which simulates the moral dilemma through a series of unfair scenarios. We used LLM agents to simulate human behavior, ensuring alignment across various stages. Our findings indicate that, behaviorally, GPT-4o exhibits a stronger sense of social justice, while humans display a richer range of emotions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T11:39:05Z)
• PersLLM: A Personified Training Approach for Large Language Models [66.16513246245401]
  We propose PersLLM, integrating psychology-grounded principles of personality: social practice, consistency, and dynamic development. We incorporate personality traits directly into the model parameters, enhancing the model's resistance to induction, promoting consistency, and supporting the dynamic evolution of personality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T08:13:22Z)
• Studying and improving reasoning in humans and machines [0.0]
  We investigate and compare reasoning in large language models (LLM) and humans. Our results show that most of the included models presented reasoning errors akin to those frequently ascribed to error-prone, induce-based human reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-21T21:02:05Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• Exploring the psychology of LLMs' Moral and Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit expert-level performance in tasks across a wide range of different domains. Ethical issues raised by LLMs and the need to align future versions makes it important to know how state of the art models reason about moral and legal issues. We replicate eight studies from the experimental literature with instances of Google's Gemini Pro, Anthropic's Claude 2.1, OpenAI's GPT-4, and Meta's Llama 2 Chat 70b. We find that alignment with human responses shifts from one experiment to another, and that models differ amongst themselves as to their overall
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-02T16:36:58Z)
• Large Language Models Understand and Can be Enhanced by Emotional Stimuli [53.53886609012119]
  We take the first step towards exploring the ability of Large Language Models to understand emotional stimuli. Our experiments show that LLMs have a grasp of emotional intelligence, and their performance can be improved with emotional prompts. Our human study results demonstrate that EmotionPrompt significantly boosts the performance of generative tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T00:57:12Z)
• 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)
• Learning to Influence Human Behavior with Offline Reinforcement Learning [70.7884839812069]
  We focus on influence in settings where there is a need to capture human suboptimality. Experiments online with humans is potentially unsafe, and creating a high-fidelity simulator of the environment is often impractical. We show that offline reinforcement learning can learn to effectively influence suboptimal humans by extending and combining elements of observed human-human behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-03T23:41:55Z)
• Evaluating and Inducing Personality in Pre-trained Language Models [78.19379997967191]
  We draw inspiration from psychometric studies by leveraging human personality theory as a tool for studying machine behaviors. To answer these questions, we introduce the Machine Personality Inventory (MPI) tool for studying machine behaviors. MPI follows standardized personality tests, built upon the Big Five Personality Factors (Big Five) theory and personality assessment inventories. We devise a Personality Prompting (P2) method to induce LLMs with specific personalities in a controllable way.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T07:32:57Z)

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.