arXiv subjects

Paweł Niszczota

Publications and source records attributed to Paweł Niszczota.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Antisocial behavior towards large language model users: experimental evidence

The rapid spread of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about the social reactions they provoke. Prior research documents negative attitudes toward AI users, but it remains unclear whether such disapproval translates into costly action. We address this question in a two-phase online experiment (N = 491 Phase II participants; Phase I provided targets) where participants could spend part of their own endowment to reduce the earnings of peers who had previously completed a real-effort task with or without LLM support. On average, participants destroyed 36% of the earnings of those who relied exclusively on the model, with punishment increasing monotonically with actual LLM use. Disclosure about LLM use created a credibility gap: self-reported null use was punished more harshly than actual null use, suggesting that declarations of "no use" are treated with suspicion. Conversely, at high levels of use, actual reliance on the model was punished more strongly than self-reported reliance. Taken together, these findings provide the first behavioral evidence that the efficiency gains of LLMs come at the cost of social sanctions.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Do people expect different behavior from large language models acting on their behalf? Evidence from norm elicitations in two canonical economic games

While delegating tasks to large language models (LLMs) can save people time, there is growing evidence that offloading tasks to such models produces social costs. We use behavior in two canonical economic games to study whether people have different expectations when decisions are made by LLMs acting on their behalf instead of themselves. More specifically, we study the social appropriateness of a spectrum of possible behaviors: when LLMs divide resources on our behalf (Dictator Game and Ultimatum Game) and when they monitor the fairness of splits of resources (Ultimatum Game). We use the Krupka-Weber norm elicitation task to detect shifts in social appropriateness ratings. Results of two pre-registered and incentivized experimental studies using representative samples from the UK and US (N = 2,658) show three key findings. First, people find that offers from machines - when no acceptance is necessary - are judged to be less appropriate than when they come from humans, although there is no shift in the modal response. Second - when acceptance is necessary - it is more appropriate for a person to reject offers from machines than from humans. Third, receiving a rejection of an offer from a machine is no less socially appropriate than receiving the same rejection from a human. Overall, these results suggest that people apply different norms for machines deciding on how to split resources but are not opposed to machines enforcing the norms. The findings are consistent with offers made by machines now being viewed as having both a cognitive and emotional component.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Large language models can replicate cross-cultural differences in personality

We use a large-scale experiment (N=8000) to determine whether GPT-4 can replicate cross-cultural differences in the Big Five, measured using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. We used the US and South Korea as the cultural pair, given that prior research suggests substantial personality differences between people from these two countries. We manipulated the target of the simulation (US vs. Korean), the language of the inventory (English vs. Korean), and the language model (GPT-4 vs. GPT-3.5). Our results show that GPT-4 replicated the cross-cultural differences for each factor. However, mean ratings had an upward bias and exhibited lower variation than in the human samples, as well as lower structural validity. We provide preliminary evidence that LLMs can aid cross-cultural researchers and practitioners.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

People Are Highly Cooperative with Large Language Models, Especially When Communication Is Possible or Following Human Interaction

Machines driven by large language models (LLMs) have the potential to augment humans across various tasks, a development with profound implications for business settings where effective communication, collaboration, and stakeholder trust are paramount. To explore how interacting with an LLM instead of a human might shift cooperative behavior in such settings, we used the Prisoner's Dilemma game -- a surrogate of several real-world managerial and economic scenarios. In Experiment 1 (N=100), participants engaged in a thirty-round repeated game against a human, a classic bot, and an LLM (GPT, in real-time). In Experiment 2 (N=192), participants played a one-shot game against a human or an LLM, with half of them allowed to communicate with their opponent, enabling LLMs to leverage a key advantage over older-generation machines. Cooperation rates with LLMs -- while lower by approximately 10-15 percentage points compared to interactions with human opponents -- were nonetheless high. This finding was particularly notable in Experiment 2, where the psychological cost of selfish behavior was reduced. Although allowing communication about cooperation did not close the human-machine behavioral gap, it increased the likelihood of cooperation with both humans and LLMs equally (by 88%), which is particularly surprising for LLMs given their non-human nature and the assumption that people might be less receptive to cooperating with machines compared to human counterparts. Additionally, cooperation with LLMs was higher following prior interaction with humans, suggesting a spillover effect in cooperative behavior. Our findings validate the (careful) use of LLMs by businesses in settings that have a cooperative component.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

GPT has become financially literate: Insights from financial literacy tests of GPT and a preliminary test of how people use it as a source of advice

We assess the ability of GPT -- a large language model -- to serve as a financial robo-advisor for the masses, by using a financial literacy test. Davinci and ChatGPT based on GPT-3.5 score 66% and 65% on the financial literacy test, respectively, compared to a baseline of 33%. However, ChatGPT based on GPT-4 achieves a near-perfect 99% score, pointing to financial literacy becoming an emergent ability of state-of-the-art models. We use the Judge-Advisor System and a savings dilemma to illustrate how researchers might assess advice-utilization from large language models. We also present a number of directions for future research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Judgments of research co-created by generative AI: experimental evidence

The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the use of generative AI (large language models; LLMs), including its use by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust and devalue researchers and scientific output. Participants (N=402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM, and rated (1) moral acceptability, (2) trust in the scientist to oversee future projects, and (3) the accuracy and quality of the output. People judged delegating to an LLM as less acceptable than delegating to a human (d = -0.78). Delegation to an LLM also decreased trust to oversee future research projects (d = -0.80), and people thought the results would be less accurate and of lower quality (d = -0.85). We discuss how this devaluation might transfer into the underreporting of generative AI use.

cs.HC↗