Bayesian Statistical Modeling with Predictors from LLMs

Overview

• The paper investigates the "human-likeness" of large language models (LLMs) by comparing their performance on multiple-choice decision tasks to human behavior.
• Using data from a forced-choice experiment on pragmatic language use, the researchers find that LLMs do not capture the variability in human responses at the individual item level.
• The paper explores different approaches to deriving distributional predictions from LLMs and assessing how well they fit the human data at the aggregate, condition level.
• The results suggest that the assessment of LLM performance depends on the specific methodological choices and that LLMs are better suited for predicting human behavior at the aggregate level, rather than individual-level predictions.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly prominent in various applications, often serving as proxies for human judgments or decision-making. This raises questions about how "human-like" the information generated by these models really is and whether they could be considered as models of human cognition or language use.

To better understand these issues, the researchers in this paper looked at how well LLMs perform on multiple-choice decision tasks compared to actual human behavior. They used data from an experiment where people had to make pragmatic [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/probing-large-language-models-from-human-behavioral] language use choices.

The researchers found that the LLMs were not able to capture the variability in the human responses at the individual level. However, they explored different ways of using the LLMs to make predictions at the overall, "condition" level (rather than individual responses). Some of these approaches were able to reasonably match the human data, while others were not.

The key takeaway is that the success of LLMs in predicting human behavior depends a lot on the specific methods used. LLMs may be better suited for making predictions at the aggregate, group level, rather than trying to model individual human decisions. This is an important consideration as these models are increasingly used in applications that rely on human-like judgments.

Technical Explanation

The paper investigates the "human-likeness" of large language models (LLMs) by comparing their performance on multiple-choice decision tasks to human behavior. Using data from a forced-choice experiment on pragmatic language use, the researchers find that LLMs do not capture the variance in the human data at the item-level.

The researchers explore different ways of deriving full distributional predictions from LLMs for aggregate, condition-level data. Some approaches, such as [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/llm-processes-numerical-predictive-distributions-conditioned-natural], yield adequate fits to the human data, while others do not. The results suggest that the assessment of LLM performance depends strongly on the specific methodological choices.

Overall, the findings indicate that LLMs are at best predictors of human behavior at the aggregate, condition-level, for which they are not typically designed or used to make predictions. The paper raises important questions about the [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/psychometric-predictive-power-large-language-models] and [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/humans-vs-large-language-models-judgmental-forecasting] of LLMs in applications that rely on human-like judgments or decision-making.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thoughtful examination of the limitations of using LLMs as proxies for human cognition or decision-making. The researchers acknowledge that LLMs are not designed to make predictions at the individual level and that their performance should be assessed at the aggregate, condition level.

However, the paper does not address the potential reasons why LLMs may struggle to capture the variability in human responses. It would be helpful to understand more about the specific cognitive and linguistic processes underlying the pragmatic language use tasks and how they may differ from the underlying mechanisms of LLMs.

Additionally, the paper could have explored the potential implications of these findings for the [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/do-large-language-models-perform-way-people] of LLMs in real-world applications. While the researchers mention the increasing use of LLMs as proxies for human judgments, they do not delve into the potential risks or ethical considerations of this practice.

Overall, the paper provides valuable insights into the challenges of using LLMs to model human behavior and highlights the need for more nuanced approaches to assessing the capabilities and limitations of these powerful language models.

Conclusion

This paper sheds light on the limitations of using large language models (LLMs) as proxies for human judgments or decision-making. The researchers find that LLMs do not capture the variability in human responses on multiple-choice decision tasks at the individual level, despite their impressive performance on various benchmarks.

The paper explores different approaches to deriving distributional predictions from LLMs and assessing their fit to human data at the aggregate, condition level. The results suggest that the success of LLMs in predicting human behavior depends on the specific methodological choices, and that LLMs are better suited for making predictions at the group level rather than individual-level predictions.

These findings have important implications for the use of LLMs in applications that rely on human-like judgments or decision-making. As these models become more prevalent, it is crucial to understand their limitations and develop more nuanced approaches to assessing their performance and potential applications.