-
Can AI Understand Human Personality? -- Comparing Human Experts and AI Systems at Predicting Personality Correlations
Authors:
Philipp Schoenegger,
Spencer Greenberg,
Alexander Grishin,
Joshua Lewis,
Lucius Caviola
Abstract:
We test the abilities of specialised deep neural networks like PersonalityMap as well as general LLMs like GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus in understanding human personality. Specifically, we compare their ability to predict correlations between personality items to the abilities of lay people and academic experts. We find that when compared with individual humans, all AI models make better predictions t…
▽ More
We test the abilities of specialised deep neural networks like PersonalityMap as well as general LLMs like GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus in understanding human personality. Specifically, we compare their ability to predict correlations between personality items to the abilities of lay people and academic experts. We find that when compared with individual humans, all AI models make better predictions than the vast majority of lay people and academic experts. However, when selecting the median prediction for each item, we find a different pattern: Experts and PersonalityMap outperform LLMs and lay people on most measures. Our results suggest that while frontier LLMs' are better than most individual humans at predicting correlations between personality items, specialised models like PersonalityMap continue to match or exceed expert human performance even on some outcome measures where LLMs underperform. This provides evidence both in favour of the general capabilities of large language models and in favour of the continued place for specialised models trained and deployed for specific domains.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Wisdom of the Silicon Crowd: LLM Ensemble Prediction Capabilities Rival Human Crowd Accuracy
Authors:
Philipp Schoenegger,
Indre Tuminauskaite,
Peter S. Park,
Rafael Valdece Sousa Bastos,
Philip E. Tetlock
Abstract:
Human forecasting accuracy in practice relies on the 'wisdom of the crowd' effect, in which predictions about future events are significantly improved by aggregating across a crowd of individual forecasters. Past work on the forecasting ability of large language models (LLMs) suggests that frontier LLMs, as individual forecasters, underperform compared to the gold standard of a human-crowd forecas…
▽ More
Human forecasting accuracy in practice relies on the 'wisdom of the crowd' effect, in which predictions about future events are significantly improved by aggregating across a crowd of individual forecasters. Past work on the forecasting ability of large language models (LLMs) suggests that frontier LLMs, as individual forecasters, underperform compared to the gold standard of a human-crowd forecasting-tournament aggregate. In Study 1, we expand this research by using an LLM ensemble approach consisting of a crowd of 12 LLMs. We compare the aggregated LLM predictions on 31 binary questions to those of a crowd of 925 human forecasters from a three-month forecasting tournament. Our preregistered main analysis shows that the LLM crowd outperforms a simple no-information benchmark, and is not statistically different from the human crowd. We also observe a set of human-like biases in machine responses, such as an acquiescence effect and a tendency to favour round numbers. In Study 2, we test whether LLM predictions (of GPT-4 and Claude 2) can be improved by drawing on human cognitive output. We find that both models' forecasting accuracy benefits from exposure to the median human prediction as information, improving accuracy by between 17% and 28%, though this leads to less accurate predictions than simply averaging human and machine forecasts. Our results suggest that LLMs can achieve forecasting accuracy rivaling that of the human crowd: via the simple, practically applicable method of forecast aggregation.
△ Less
Submitted 17 June, 2024; v1 submitted 29 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
AI-Augmented Predictions: LLM Assistants Improve Human Forecasting Accuracy
Authors:
Philipp Schoenegger,
Peter S. Park,
Ezra Karger,
Philip E. Tetlock
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) show impressive capabilities, matching and sometimes exceeding human performance in many domains. This study explores the potential of LLMs to augment judgement in forecasting tasks. We evaluated the impact on forecasting accuracy of two GPT-4-Turbo assistants: one designed to provide high-quality advice ('superforecasting'), and the other designed to be overconfident…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) show impressive capabilities, matching and sometimes exceeding human performance in many domains. This study explores the potential of LLMs to augment judgement in forecasting tasks. We evaluated the impact on forecasting accuracy of two GPT-4-Turbo assistants: one designed to provide high-quality advice ('superforecasting'), and the other designed to be overconfident and base-rate-neglecting. Participants (N = 991) had the option to consult their assigned LLM assistant throughout the study, in contrast to a control group that used a less advanced model (DaVinci-003) without direct forecasting support. Our preregistered analyses reveal that LLM augmentation significantly enhances forecasting accuracy by 23% across both types of assistants, compared to the control group. This improvement occurs despite the superforecasting assistant's higher accuracy in predictions, indicating the augmentation's benefit is not solely due to model prediction accuracy. Exploratory analyses showed a pronounced effect in one forecasting item, without which we find that the superforecasting assistant increased accuracy by 43%, compared with 28% for the biased assistant. We further examine whether LLM augmentation disproportionately benefits less skilled forecasters, degrades the wisdom-of-the-crowd by reducing prediction diversity, or varies in effectiveness with question difficulty. Our findings do not consistently support these hypotheses. Our results suggest that access to an LLM assistant, even a biased one, can be a helpful decision aid in cognitively demanding tasks where the answer is not known at the time of interaction.
△ Less
Submitted 12 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Large Language Model Prediction Capabilities: Evidence from a Real-World Forecasting Tournament
Authors:
Philipp Schoenegger,
Peter S. Park
Abstract:
Accurately predicting the future would be an important milestone in the capabilities of artificial intelligence. However, research on the ability of large language models to provide probabilistic predictions about future events remains nascent. To empirically test this ability, we enrolled OpenAI's state-of-the-art large language model, GPT-4, in a three-month forecasting tournament hosted on the…
▽ More
Accurately predicting the future would be an important milestone in the capabilities of artificial intelligence. However, research on the ability of large language models to provide probabilistic predictions about future events remains nascent. To empirically test this ability, we enrolled OpenAI's state-of-the-art large language model, GPT-4, in a three-month forecasting tournament hosted on the Metaculus platform. The tournament, running from July to October 2023, attracted 843 participants and covered diverse topics including Big Tech, U.S. politics, viral outbreaks, and the Ukraine conflict. Focusing on binary forecasts, we show that GPT-4's probabilistic forecasts are significantly less accurate than the median human-crowd forecasts. We find that GPT-4's forecasts did not significantly differ from the no-information forecasting strategy of assigning a 50% probability to every question. We explore a potential explanation, that GPT-4 might be predisposed to predict probabilities close to the midpoint of the scale, but our data do not support this hypothesis. Overall, we find that GPT-4 significantly underperforms in real-world predictive tasks compared to median human-crowd forecasts. A potential explanation for this underperformance is that in real-world forecasting tournaments, the true answers are genuinely unknown at the time of prediction; unlike in other benchmark tasks like professional exams or time series forecasting, where strong performance may at least partly be due to the answers being memorized from the training data. This makes real-world forecasting tournaments an ideal environment for testing the generalized reasoning and prediction capabilities of artificial intelligence going forward.
△ Less
Submitted 17 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Diminished Diversity-of-Thought in a Standard Large Language Model
Authors:
Peter S. Park,
Philipp Schoenegger,
Chongyang Zhu
Abstract:
We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of th…
▽ More
We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.
△ Less
Submitted 13 September, 2023; v1 submitted 13 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
