Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Sanne Peereboom

Publications and source records attributed to Sanne Peereboom.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Linguistic traces of stochastic empathy in language models

Differentiating generated and human-written content is increasingly difficult. We examine how an incentive to convey humanness and task characteristics shape this human vs AI race across five studies. In Study 1-2 (n=530 and n=610) humans and a large language model (LLM) wrote relationship advice or relationship descriptions, either with or without instructions to sound human. New participants (n=428 and n=408) judged each text's source. Instructions to sound human were only effective for the LLM, reducing the human advantage. Study 3 (n=360 and n=350) showed that these effects persist when writers were instructed to avoid sounding like an LLM. Study 4 (n=219) tested empathy as mechanism of humanness and concluded that LLMs can produce empathy without humanness and humanness without empathy. Finally, computational text analysis (Study 5) indicated that LLMs become more human-like by applying an implicit representation of humanness to mimic stochastic empathy.

cs.CL↗

Cognitive phantoms in LLMs through the lens of latent variables

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly reach real-world applications, necessitating a better understanding of their behaviour. Their size and complexity complicate traditional assessment methods, causing the emergence of alternative approaches inspired by the field of psychology. Recent studies administering psychometric questionnaires to LLMs report human-like traits in LLMs, potentially influencing LLM behaviour. However, this approach suffers from a validity problem: it presupposes that these traits exist in LLMs and that they are measurable with tools designed for humans. Typical procedures rarely acknowledge the validity problem in LLMs, comparing and interpreting average LLM scores. This study investigates this problem by comparing latent structures of personality between humans and three LLMs using two validated personality questionnaires. Findings suggest that questionnaires designed for humans do not validly measure similar constructs in LLMs, and that these constructs may not exist in LLMs at all, highlighting the need for psychometric analyses of LLM responses to avoid chasing cognitive phantoms. Keywords: large language models, psychometrics, machine behaviour, latent variable modeling, validity

cs.AI↗