Cited by 14Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAttachment and Relationship DynamicsTopic Modeling

ChatGPT Giving Relationship Advice – How Reliable Is It?

Open access
Hou, Haonan, Leach, Kevin, Huang, Yu·2024·Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Abstract

In the evolving realm of natural language processing (NLP), generative AI models like ChatGPT are increasingly utilized across various applications. Among the possible purposes, many people are considering asking ChatGPT for relationship advice. However, the lack of in-depth examination of ChatGPT's response quality could be concerning when it is used for personal topics like mental health issues and intimate relationship problems. In these topics, a piece of misleading advice could cause harmful repercussions. In response to people's growing interest in using ChatGPT as a relationship advisor, our research evaluates ChatGPT's proficiency in discerning relationship advice. Specifically, we investigate its alignment with human judgements. We conducted our analysis with 13,138 Reddit posts about intimate relationship problems to examine the overall alignment. Furthermore, we investigate ChatGPT's consistency in judging intimate relationship advice by re-prompting identical queries. Our results indicate a significant disparity between ChatGPT and human judgments, with the model displaying inconsistency in its own decisions. Our findings emphasize the need for comprehensive insights into ChatGPT's mechanisms for intimacy problems and future improvements in its proficiency in helping people's relationship struggles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31338

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All datasets are publicly available except Hou et al. (2024), from whom the authors obtained explicit consent.

    “All the datasets are publicly available beside Hou et al. ( 2024), from whom we obtained explicit consent from the authors.”

    From Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence (2026) · cites this paper as Hou et al. (2024)

    The Dataset section says Hou et al.’s refined dataset accompanies the paper, and the Conclusion says it is included in the supplemental material. That contradicts the claim that Hou et al.’s dataset is an exception to public availability. The paper does not establish whether the citing authors obtained explicit consent. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A computational study compared ChatGPT's relationship advice with relationship advice provided by laypersons in a Reddit forum and found low concordance.

    “Instead of benchmarking ChatGPT's relationship advice against expert evaluations, a computational study compared it with relationship advice provided by laypersons in a Reddit forum and found low concordance [57].”

    From The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Sexuality: A Five-Year Literature Review 2020–2024 (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Introduction and Conclusion report weak alignment between ChatGPT’s rankings of relationship suggestions and Reddit users’ judgments (Kendall’s τ < 0.10). But the Limitations section says the study excluded generating advice with ChatGPT: it compared rankings of existing suggestions, not ChatGPT’s own advice with advice written by Reddit users. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Committee on Health Care Access and Economics Task Force on Mental Health. 2009. Improving mental health services in primary care: reducing administrative and finan- cial barriers to access and collaboration. Pediatrics, 123(4): 1248-1251.
  2. Collisson, B.; Cordoviz, P.; Ponce de Leon, L.; Guillen, S.; Shier, J.; and Xiao, Z. 2018. " Should I Break Up or Make Up?" A Text Analysis of Online Relationship Advice. North American Journal of Psychology, 20(2).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hou, H., Leach, K., & Huang, Y.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
Published
2024-05-28
Volume
18
Pages
610-623
ISSN
  • 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
  • 2334-0770
OpenAlex
W4399205253
Cited by
14
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2
FWCI
6.39
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
ChatGPT, relationship advice, human-AI alignment, Reddit posts, AI chatbots

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review