Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates: Scylla Ex Machina

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19599v1
• Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:46:07 GMT
• Title: Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates: Scylla Ex Machina
• Authors: Yuan Gao, Dokyun Lee, Gordon Burtch, Sina Fazelpour,
• Abstract summary: Studies suggest large language models (LLMs) can exhibit human-like reasoning, aligning with human behavior in economic experiments, surveys, and political discourse. This has led many to propose that LLMs can be used as surrogates for humans in social science research. We assess the reasoning depth of LLMs using the 11-20 money request game.
• Score: 7.155982875107922
• License:
• Abstract: Recent studies suggest large language models (LLMs) can exhibit human-like reasoning, aligning with human behavior in economic experiments, surveys, and political discourse. This has led many to propose that LLMs can be used as surrogates for humans in social science research. However, LLMs differ fundamentally from humans, relying on probabilistic patterns, absent the embodied experiences or survival objectives that shape human cognition. We assess the reasoning depth of LLMs using the 11-20 money request game. Almost all advanced approaches fail to replicate human behavior distributions across many models, except in one case involving fine-tuning using a substantial amount of human behavior data. Causes of failure are diverse, relating to input language, roles, and safeguarding. These results caution against using LLMs to study human behaviors or as human surrogates.

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)
• Modeling Human Subjectivity in LLMs Using Explicit and Implicit Human Factors in Personas [14.650234624251716]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in human-centered social scientific tasks. These tasks are highly subjective and dependent on human factors, such as one's environment, attitudes, beliefs, and lived experiences. We examine the role of prompting LLMs with human-like personas and ask the models to answer as if they were a specific human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T16:24:07Z)
• A Survey on Human Preference Learning for Large Language Models [81.41868485811625]
  The recent surge of versatile large language models (LLMs) largely depends on aligning increasingly capable foundation models with human intentions by preference learning. This survey covers the sources and formats of preference feedback, the modeling and usage of preference signals, as well as the evaluation of the aligned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T03:52:51Z)
• Character is Destiny: Can Large Language Models Simulate Persona-Driven Decisions in Role-Playing? [59.0123596591807]
  We benchmark the ability of Large Language Models in persona-driven decision-making. We investigate whether LLMs can predict characters' decisions provided with the preceding stories in high-quality novels. The results demonstrate that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit promising capabilities in this task, yet there is substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T12:40:59Z)
• LLM-driven Imitation of Subrational Behavior : Illusion or Reality? [3.2365468114603937]
  Existing work highlights the ability of Large Language Models to address complex reasoning tasks and mimic human communication. We propose to investigate the use of LLMs to generate synthetic human demonstrations, which are then used to learn subrational agent policies. We experimentally evaluate the ability of our framework to model sub-rationality through four simple scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T19:46:39Z)
• Limits of Large Language Models in Debating Humans [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in their ability to interact proficiently with humans. This paper endeavors to test the limits of current-day LLMs with a pre-registered study integrating real people with LLM agents acting as people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:24:27Z)
• 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)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)
• Are LLMs the Master of All Trades? : Exploring Domain-Agnostic Reasoning Skills of LLMs [0.0]
  This study aims to investigate the performance of large language models (LLMs) on different reasoning tasks. My findings indicate that LLMs excel at analogical and moral reasoning, yet struggle to perform as proficiently on spatial reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-22T22:53:44Z)
• 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.