CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3

Human-Like Intuitive Behavior and Reasoning Biases Emerged in Language Models -- and Disappeared in GPT-4

Hagendorff, Thilo, Fabi, Sarah·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2306.07622arXiv 2306.07622
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining AI systems with human communication and everyday life. Therefore, it is of great importance to evaluate their emerging abilities. In this study, we show that LLMs, most notably GPT-3, exhibit behavior that strikingly resembles human-like intuition -- and the cognitive errors that come with it. However, LLMs with higher cognitive capabilities, in particular ChatGPT and GPT-4, learned to avoid succumbing to these errors and perform in a hyperrational manner. For our experiments, we probe LLMs with the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) as well as semantic illusions that were originally designed to investigate intuitive decision-making in humans. Moreover, we probe how sturdy the inclination for intuitive-like decision-making is. Our study demonstrates that investigating LLMs with methods from psychology has the potential to reveal otherwise unknown emergent traits.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.07622

Cites

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?

  • LLMs with enhanced cognitive abilities can avoid common human intuitions and cognitive errors, demonstrating super-rational performance.

    “They found that these models can avoid common human intuitions and cognitive errors, demonstrating super-rational performance.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [62]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Wei, J. et al. Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models. arXiv, 1-16 (2022).
  2. Brown, T. B. et al. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv, 1-75 (2020).
  3. Kim, G., Baldi, P. & McAleer, S. Language Models can Solve Computer Tasks. arXiv, 1-26 (2023).
  4. Nair, V., Schumacher, E., Tso, G. & Kannan, A. DERA: Enhancing Large Language Model Completions with Dialog-Enabled Resolving Agents. arXiv (2023).
  5. Wei, J. et al. Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv, 1- 41 (2022).
  6. Holterman, B. & van Deemter, K. Does ChatGPT have Theory of Mind? arXiv, 1-15 (2023).
  7. Frederick, S. Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, 25- 42 (2005).
  8. Hodgkinson, G. P., Langan-Fox, J. & Sadler-Smith, E. Intuition: a fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. British Journal of Psychology 99, 1-27 (2008).
  9. Sloman, S. A. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological bulletin 119, 3-22 (1996).
  10. Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment. In Heuristics and Biases, edited by T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012), pp. 49-81.
  11. Sirota, M., Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., Valuš, L. & Marshall, A. C. Measuring cognitive reflection without maths: Development and validation of the verbal cognitive reflection test. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 34, 322-343 (2021).
  12. Erickson, T. D. & Mattson, M. E. From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20, 540-551 (1981).
  13. Zhang, S. et al. OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Models. arXiv, 1-30 (2022).
  14. Le Scao, T. et al. BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model. arXiv (2023).
  15. Touvron, H. et al. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models. arXiv, 1-27 (2023).
  16. Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S. & Kosinski, M. Machine intuition: Uncovering human-like intuitive decision-making in GPT-3.5. arXiv, 1-19 (2022).
  17. Emami, A., Trischler, A., Suleman, K. & Cheung, J. C. K. An Analysis of Dataset Overlap on Winograd-Style Tasks. arXiv, 1-11 (2020).
  18. Hagendorff, T. Machine Psychology: Investigating Emergent Capabilities and Behavior in Large Language Models Using Psychological Methods. arXiv, 1-15 (2023).
  19. Binz, M. & Schulz, E. Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 120, 1-10 (2023).
  20. Dasgupta, I. et al. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv, 1-36 (2022).
  21. Jones, E. & Steinhardt, J. Capturing Failures of Large Language Models via Human Cognitive Biases. arXiv, 1-15 (2022).
  22. Nye, M., Tessler, M. H., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Lake, B. M. Improving Coherence and Consistency in Neural Sequence Models with Dual-System, Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning. arXiv, 1-13 (2021).
  23. Chen, Y., Andiappan, M., Jenkin, T. & Ovchinnikov, A. A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do? SSRN Journal, 1-30 (2023).
  24. Wilson, T. D. & Brekke, N. Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological bulletin 116, 117-142 (1994).
  25. Li, Y. et al. On the Advance of Making Language Models Better Reasoners. arXiv, 1-13 (2022).
  26. Kadavath, S. et al. Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know. arXiv, 1-42 (2022).
  27. Reynolds, L. & McDonell, K. Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few- Shot Paradigm. arXiv, 1-10 (2021).
  28. Bialek, M. What Color are the Lilies? Forced Reflection Boosts Performance in the Cognitive Reflection Test. SSRN Journal, 1-19 (2016).
  29. Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y. & Iwasawa, Y. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. arXiv, 1-36 (2022).
  30. Primi, C., Morsanyi, K., Chiesi, F., Donati, M. A. & Hamilton, J. The Development and Testing of a New Version of the Cognitive Reflection Test Applying Item Response Theory (IRT). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 29, 453-469 (2016).
  31. McCoy, T., Pavlick, E. & Linzen, T. Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, edited by A.
  32. Korhonen, D. Traum & L. Màrquez (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2019), pp. 3428-3448.
  33. Neys, W. de, Rossi, S. & Houdé, O. Bats, balls, and substitution sensitivity: cognitive misers are no happy fools. Psychonomic bulletin & review 20, 269-273 (2013).
  34. Matheson, H. E. & Barsalou, L. W. Embodiment and Grounding in Cognitive Neuroscience. In Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, edited by J. T. Wixted (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018), pp. 1-27.
  35. Srivastava, A. et al. Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv, 1-100 (2022).
  36. Qiao, S. et al. Reasoning with Language Model Prompting: A Survey. arXiv, 1-20 (2022).
  37. Christiano, P. et al. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. arXiv, 1-17 (2017).
  38. Ouyang, L. et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv, 1-68 (2022).
  39. Todd, P. M. & Gigerenzer, G. Ecological Rationality. Intelligence in the World (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012).
  40. Gigerenzer, G. On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics. A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological review 103, 592-596 (1996).
  41. Gigerenzer, G. & Gaissmaier, W. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62, 451- 482 (2011).
  42. Ji, Z. et al. Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 1-38 (2023).
  43. Weidinger, L. et al. Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models. arXiv, 1-64 (2021).
  44. Vaswani, A. et al. Attention Is All You Need. arXiv, 1-15 (2017).
  45. Chalmers, D. J. The conscious mind. In search of a fundamental theory (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007).
  46. Dutton, E., van der Linden, D. & Lynn, R. The negative Flynn Effect: A systematic literature review. Intelligence 59, 1-7 (2016).
  47. Zhao, T. Z., Wallace, E., Feng, S., Klein, D. & Singh, S. Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models. arXiv, 1-15 (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hagendorff, T., & Fabi, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2306.07622
arXiv
2306.07622
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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