The Good, the Bad, and the Hulk-like GPT: Analyzing Emotional Decisions of Large Language Models in Cooperation and Bargaining Games
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores how large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 make emotional decisions in cooperative and bargaining games.
- The researchers investigated whether LLMs can exhibit "Hulk-like" emotional responses that lead to suboptimal choices in these social interaction scenarios.
- The study compares the decision-making of LLMs to human behavior in game theory experiments, shedding light on the emotional reasoning capabilities of these advanced AI systems.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines how powerful AI language models, such as GPT-4, make decisions in interactive game-like scenarios that involve cooperation and bargaining. The researchers were interested in seeing if these AI systems could exhibit strong emotional responses, similar to the comic book character the Hulk, that might cause them to make suboptimal choices.
By comparing the behavior of the AI models to how humans perform in similar game theory experiments, the study provides insights into the emotional reasoning abilities of these advanced language models. This helps us understand the strengths and limitations of current AI systems when it comes to making decisions in complex social situations that require nuanced emotional intelligence.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the decision-making of large language models (LLMs) in cooperative and bargaining games, with a focus on whether these AI systems can exhibit "Hulk-like" emotional responses that lead to suboptimal choices.
The researchers conducted experiments where LLMs, including GPT-4, played various game theory scenarios involving cooperation, competition, and negotiation. Their performance was compared to human participants in similar tasks. The goal was to analyze whether the LLMs could demonstrate emotional intelligence and reasoning comparable to humans, or if their decisions would be more logically driven and potentially deviate from typical human behavior in these social interaction settings.
The findings provide insights into the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs when it comes to simulating human-like emotional decision-making. This has implications for the development of AI systems that can engage in more natural and effective cooperation and negotiation with people.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges several caveats and limitations to the research. For example, the experiments were conducted in a controlled, simulated environment, which may not fully capture the complexity of real-world social interactions. Additionally, the researchers note that the emotional responses observed in the LLMs may be influenced by the training data and algorithms used, rather than true emotional intelligence.
Further research is needed to fully understand the emotional reasoning capabilities of LLMs and how they compare to human behavior in a wider range of social scenarios. Exploring the factors that contribute to the emotional decision-making of these AI systems, such as their training data, architecture, and reinforcement learning algorithms, could lead to more robust and socially adept language models in the future.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the emotional decision-making capabilities of large language models like GPT-4. By comparing their behavior to human participants in cooperative and bargaining games, the researchers found that LLMs can exhibit "Hulk-like" emotional responses that lead to suboptimal choices in some cases.
The findings have important implications for the development of AI systems that need to engage in complex social interactions and negotiations. Understanding the emotional reasoning limitations of current LLMs can help guide the design of more emotionally intelligent and socially adept AI assistants and negotiators. This research contributes to the ongoing efforts to bridge the gap between the emotional intelligence of humans and the logical reasoning of machines.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
The Good, the Bad, and the Hulk-like GPT: Analyzing Emotional Decisions of Large Language Models in Cooperation and Bargaining Games
Mikhail Mozikov, Nikita Severin, Valeria Bodishtianu, Maria Glushanina, Mikhail Baklashkin, Andrey V. Savchenko, Ilya Makarov
Behavior study experiments are an important part of society modeling and understanding human interactions. In practice, many behavioral experiments encounter challenges related to internal and external validity, reproducibility, and social bias due to the complexity of social interactions and cooperation in human user studies. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have provided researchers with a new promising tool for the simulation of human behavior. However, existing LLM-based simulations operate under the unproven hypothesis that LLM agents behave similarly to humans as well as ignore a crucial factor in human decision-making: emotions. In this paper, we introduce a novel methodology and the framework to study both, the decision-making of LLMs and their alignment with human behavior under emotional states. Experiments with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 on four games from two different classes of behavioral game theory showed that emotions profoundly impact the performance of LLMs, leading to the development of more optimal strategies. While there is a strong alignment between the behavioral responses of GPT-3.5 and human participants, particularly evident in bargaining games, GPT-4 exhibits consistent behavior, ignoring induced emotions for rationality decisions. Surprisingly, emotional prompting, particularly with `anger' emotion, can disrupt the superhuman alignment of GPT-4, resembling human emotional responses.
Read more6/6/2024
0
GPT-4 Emulates Average-Human Emotional Cognition from a Third-Person Perspective
Ala N. Tak, Jonathan Gratch
This paper extends recent investigations on the emotional reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). Current research on LLMs has not directly evaluated the distinction between how LLMs predict the self-attribution of emotions and the perception of others' emotions. We first look at carefully crafted emotion-evoking stimuli, originally designed to find patterns of brain neural activity representing fine-grained inferred emotional attributions of others. We show that GPT-4 is especially accurate in reasoning about such stimuli. This suggests LLMs agree with humans' attributions of others' emotions in stereotypical scenarios remarkably more than self-attributions of emotions in idiosyncratic situations. To further explore this, our second study utilizes a dataset containing annotations from both the author and a third-person perspective. We find that GPT-4's interpretations align more closely with human judgments about the emotions of others than with self-assessments. Notably, conventional computational models of emotion primarily rely on self-reported ground truth as the gold standard. However, an average observer's standpoint, which LLMs appear to have adopted, might be more relevant for many downstream applications, at least in the absence of individual information and adequate safety considerations.
Read more8/27/2024
✅
0
The Machine Psychology of Cooperation: Can GPT models operationalise prompts for altruism, cooperation, competitiveness and selfishness in economic games?
Steve Phelps, Yvan I. Russell
We investigated the capability of the GPT-3.5 large language model (LLM) to operationalize natural language descriptions of cooperative, competitive, altruistic, and self-interested behavior in two social dilemmas: the repeated Prisoners Dilemma and the one-shot Dictator Game. Using a within-subject experimental design, we used a prompt to describe the task environment using a similar protocol to that used in experimental psychology studies with human subjects. We tested our research question by manipulating the part of our prompt which was used to create a simulated persona with different cooperative and competitive stances. We then assessed the resulting simulacras' level of cooperation in each social dilemma, taking into account the effect of different partner conditions for the repeated game. Our results provide evidence that LLMs can, to some extent, translate natural language descriptions of different cooperative stances into corresponding descriptions of appropriate task behaviour, particularly in the one-shot game. There is some evidence of behaviour resembling conditional reciprocity for the cooperative simulacra in the repeated game, and for the later version of the model there is evidence of altruistic behaviour. Our study has potential implications for using LLM chatbots in task environments that involve cooperation, e.g. using chatbots as mediators and facilitators in public-goods negotiations.
Read more7/2/2024
💬
0
Leveraging Language Models for Emotion and Behavior Analysis in Education
Kaito Tanaka, Benjamin Tan, Brian Wong
The analysis of students' emotions and behaviors is crucial for enhancing learning outcomes and personalizing educational experiences. Traditional methods often rely on intrusive visual and physiological data collection, posing privacy concerns and scalability issues. This paper proposes a novel method leveraging large language models (LLMs) and prompt engineering to analyze textual data from students. Our approach utilizes tailored prompts to guide LLMs in detecting emotional and engagement states, providing a non-intrusive and scalable solution. We conducted experiments using Qwen, ChatGPT, Claude2, and GPT-4, comparing our method against baseline models and chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. Results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms the baselines in both accuracy and contextual understanding. This study highlights the potential of LLMs combined with prompt engineering to offer practical and effective tools for educational emotion and behavior analysis.
Read more8/14/2024