Linguistic traces of stochastic empathy in language models
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1038/s41467-026-77350-1
Abstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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 can be readily instructed to evoke and mimic humanness.
“In the absence of concrete regulation, and as regulation in this space is still emerging, we would need to rely on the awareness and voluntary restraint of developers and system providers to dehumanize their systems, given how readily LLMs can be instructed to evoke and mimic humanness (61).”
From The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents (2025) · cites this paper as [61]
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
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) have been among the landmark technical achievements of the past decade [1–3].”
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649 · cited 1× · see citing works
“All data, materials and code to reproduce the LLM data collection are publicly available at: https://osf.io/rcz6s/?view_only=82e087f3c0a64b0aaf6039094cfc5c9c.”
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303 · see citing works
Sharpe, V., & Gurian-Sherman, D. (2003) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1003-1131a · Cited by 7,379
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The AUC is obtained by plotting the sensitivity (i.e., true positive rate) against 1-specificity (i.e., true negative rate) across all response variable values as classification threshold values and measures how much the area under that curve deviates from a non-diagnostic diagonal line.”
Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/pbr.16.2.225 · Cited by 3,688 · see citing works
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works
Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course
Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139087759 · Cited by 1,795 · see citing works
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Wassertheil, S., & Cohen, J. (1970) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529115 · Cited by 1,383 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The Cohen’s d effect size represents small ( d =0.20), moderate ( d =0.50) and large effects ( d =0.80)[ 36,37].”
InfluentialRahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W., Christakis, N. A., Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y · Cited by 1,364 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Borrowed from early behaviourist ideas, the machine behaviour school is careful not to attribute inner processes to how AI models, such as LLMs, work.”
Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models
Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.07682 · Cited by 1,264 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We did not find a difference when we used a more advanced LLM but evidence on “emergent LLM abilities” [48,49] suggests that increasing model size and sophistication might play a role when examined more comprehensively.”
Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data
Bender, E. M., & Koller, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463 · Cited by 1,082 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The decisive advantage of that approach is that is threshold-independent and does not require a specific threshold value as is the case in accuracy or other classification metrics.”
Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data
Rohrer, J. M. (2018) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245917745629 · Cited by 1,002 · cited 1× · see citing works
“1”
The QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy
Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.528484 · Cited by 961 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We added two questions about different aspects of empathy required in the task (compassion and perspective taking, rated on a 7-point scale from "completely disagree" to "completely agree") and asked each participant to fill in the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE, [31]).”
Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet
Templeton, A., Conerly, T., Marcus, J., Lindsey, J., Bricken, T., Chen, B. K., Pearce, A., Citro, C., Ameisen, E., Jones, A., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.29358 · Cited by 915 · cited 1×
“A possible avenue would instead be to learn more about mechanisms that enable empathic writing or even localise these as features in a language model’s network [46,47].”
Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3
Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2218523120 · Cited by 559 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Using that approach led to the discovery of racial prejudices in LLMs [21], proneness to cognitive biases [22], illusory truth effects in LLMs [23] and early efforts on testing a theory of mind in AI models [24,25].”
Bloom, P. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 · Cited by 437 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Further, for contrasts comparing two groups, we report Frequentist null hypothesis significance tests with Cohen’s d effect sizes and 99% confidence intervals, as well as Bayes Factors (BF) derived from Bayesian t-tests [26] using the BayesFactor R package with default priors [27].”
Köbis, N., & Mossink, L. D. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106553 · Cited by 406 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As a robustness check, we also report the multilevel findings on the non-aggregated data in the supplementary material (SM 14) where we include text and human rater as random intercepts.”
Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI
Costello, T. H., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adq1814 · Cited by 354 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…help of large language models, and recent evidence indicates that LLM-generated content is highly effective in influencing opinion – both in an encouraging form shown to dampen conspiratorial thinking in humans [4] and more concerningly, in the form of persuasive messaging on political issues [5].”
Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed
Jakesch, M., Hancock, J. T., & Naaman, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2208839120 · Cited by 342 · cited 7× · see citing works
“That effect showed that texts written by humans ( M =3.46, SD =0.89) were rated as more human than those generated by an LLM ( M =2.75, SD =0.85), d =0.82 [0.65; 0.98], BF 10 >100, BF 01 <0.01, regardless of the task instructions.”
InfluentialProfile as promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations
Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2012) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444811410395 · Cited by 326 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…to expressing themselves (e.g., presenting oneself favourably, eliciting contacts for dating) - a self-serving objective that is not disentangled from other objectives of self-representation (e.g., the need to navigate between acceptable and intolerable misrepresentations in dating profiles [10]).”
Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans
Strachan, J. W. A., Albergo, D., Borghini, G., Pansardi, O., Scaliti, E., Gupta, S., Saxena, K., Rufo, A., Panzeri, S., Manzi, G., et al. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01882-z · Cited by 299 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For the current paper, we adopt the experimental method and apply it to both human participants and LLM queries.”
In principle obstacles for empathic AI: why we can’t replace human empathy in healthcare
Montemayor, C., Halpern, J., & Fairweather, A. (2022) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01230-z · Cited by 293 · cited 2× · see citing works
“According to [12,13], important to distinguish are three aspects of empathy: cognitive (i.e., understanding and inferring emotions of others) and emotional empathy (i.e., experiencing the feelings of another person or group even if they are not present) as well as motivational empathy, which some…”
All That’s ‘Human’ Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text
Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.565 · Cited by 290 · cited 1× · see citing works
“There is evidence that humans use a mix of aligned and misaligned cues to decide whether a text is LLM-generated [9,38].”
AI can help people feel heard, but an AI label diminishes this impact
Yin, Y., Jia, N., & Wakslak, C. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2319112121 · Cited by 247 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Recent work where human participants were receiving emotional support from an LLM (Bing Chat) suggest that humans indeed report feeling heard as long as they were led to believe the response stemmed from another human [16] (see also [17]).”
Statistical Control Requires Causal Justification
Wysocki, A. C., Lawson, K. M., & Rhemtulla, M. (2020) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459221095823 · Cited by 236 · cited 1× · see citing works
“1”
AI generates covertly racist decisions about people based on their dialect
Hofmann, V., Kalluri, P. R., Jurafsky, D., & King, S. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07856-5 · Cited by 233 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Using that approach led to the discovery of racial prejudices in LLMs [21], proneness to cognitive biases [22], illusory truth effects in LLMs [23] and early efforts on testing a theory of mind in AI models [24,25].”
Are empathy and concern psychologically distinct?
Jordan, M. R., Amir, D., & Bloom, P. (2016) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000228 · Cited by 210 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Interestingly, [14] measured empathy with the Empathy Index [39] which focuses on emotional empathy (“feeling what others feel”).”
A Permutation Test to Compare Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves
Venkatraman, E. S. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.01134.x · Cited by 170 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The DeLong’s test [29,30] for comparing two AUCs indicated a significant difference, D (952.92)=7.05, p .001.”
InfluentialAI will never convey the essence of human empathy
Perry, A. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01675-w · Cited by 162 · cited 4× · see citing works
“But an indefatigable empathic AI also undermines genuine human empathy because when recipients of empathy become accustomed to omnipresent empathy for their concerns, they might hold fellow humans to unrealistic expectations, which could cause tensions in areas such as medical care [11,12].”
InfluentialComparing the value of perceived human versus AI-generated empathy
Rubin, M., Li, J. Z., Zimmerman, F., Ong, D. C., Goldenberg, A., & Perry, A. (2025) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02247-w · Cited by 132 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Recent work where human participants were receiving emotional support from an LLM (Bing Chat) suggest that humans indeed report feeling heard as long as they were led to believe the response stemmed from another human [16] (see also [17]).”
Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs
Sap, M., Le Bras, R., Fried, D., & Choi, Y. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.248 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs
Sap, M., LeBras, R., Fried, D., & Choi, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.13312 · Cited by 118 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Using that approach led to the discovery of racial prejudices in LLMs [21], proneness to cognitive biases [22], illusory truth effects in LLMs [23] and early efforts on testing a theory of mind in AI models [24,25].”
Testing Human Ability To Detect Deepfake Images of Human FacesPreprint
Bray, S. D., Johnson, S., & Kleinberg, B. (2022) · Journal of Cybersecurity · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.05056 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Self-citationEvaluating the persuasive influence of political microtargeting with large language models
Hackenburg, K., & Margetts, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2403116121 · Cited by 114 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…help of large language models, and recent evidence indicates that LLM-generated content is highly effective in influencing opinion – both in an encouraging form shown to dampen conspiratorial thinking in humans [4] and more concerningly, in the form of persuasive messaging on political issues [5].”
Language Model Behavior: A Comprehensive Survey
Chang, T. A., & Bergen, B. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00492 · Cited by 105 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) have been among the landmark technical achievements of the past decade [1–3].”
Deception abilities emerged in large language models
Hagendorff, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2317967121 · Cited by 100 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We did not find a difference when we used a more advanced LLM but evidence on “emergent LLM abilities” [48,49] suggests that increasing model size and sophistication might play a role when examined more comprehensively.”
Warning: Humans cannot reliably detect speech deepfakes
Mai, K. T., Bray, S., Davies, T., & Griffin, L. D. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285333 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Testing human ability to detect ‘deepfake’ images of human faces
Bray, S. D., Johnson, S. D., & Kleinberg, B. (2023) · Journal of Cybersecurity · doi:10.1093/cybsec/tyad011 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Self-citationInzlicht, M., Cameron, C., D'Cruz, J., & Bloom, P. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.12.003 · Cited by 76 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Discussions of “empathic AI” seem to agree that since emotional empathy requires experiencing feelings of others, current LLMs would not be expected to genuinely possess emotional empathy [11,15].”
Hagendorff, T., Dasgupta, I., Binz, M., Chan, S. C. Y., Lampinen, A., Wang, J. X., Akata, Z., & Schulz, E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.13988 · Cited by 68 · cited 2× · see citing works
“A more direct reference to the field of psychology is made elsewhere [20] with the argument that differences in observable behaviour (e.g., generated text) attributable to manipulation in input (e.g., changing prompt instructions) can provide insights about underlying processes or representations…”
Learning Word Ratings for Empathy and Distress from Document-Level User ResponsesPreprint
Sedoc, J., Buechel, S., Nachmany, Y., Buffone, A. E. K., & Ungar, L. (2019) · International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.01079 · Cited by 35 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We employed the empathic concern dictionary [34] to obtain one single metric that measures the level of empathic concern at the document level using a dictionary of 9,356 terms with empathy ratings.”
Metaphors of AI indicate that people increasingly perceive AI as warm and human-like
Cheng, M., Lee, A. Y., Rapuano, K. M., Niederhoffer, K. G., Liebscher, A., & Hancock, J. T. (2026) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00376-6 · Cited by 33 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Those that failed the manipulation check were excluded ( n =78).”
Characterizing empathy and compassion using computational linguistic analysis.
Yaden, D., Giorgi, S., Jordan, M., Buffone, A. E. K., Eichstaedt, J., Schwartz, H. A., Kulkarni, P. V., & Bloom, P. (2023) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0001205 · Cited by 31 · cited 2×
“Others have used an overarching differentiation between “self-focused” empathy and “other-focused” compassion [14].”
Me vs. the machine? Subjective evaluations of human- and AI-generated advice
Osborne, M. R., & Bailey, E. R. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-86623-6 · Cited by 29 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In this paper, we use relationship advice as the domain of interest that meets that requirement [18].”
Qi, Q.-L., Luo, Y., Xu, Y.-J., Guo, W., & Fang, Y. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.11109 · Cited by 29 · cited 1×
“We obtained the same number of texts from the LLM.”
Cheng, M., Lee, A. Y., Rapuano, K., Niederhoffer, K., Liebscher, A., & Hancock, J. T. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.18045 · Cited by 23 · cited 1×
“Those that failed the manipulation check were excluded ( n =78).”
Qi, Q., Luo, Y., Xu, Y., Guo, W., & Fang, Y. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103176 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Discussion Paper: Exploiting LLMs for Scam Automation: A Looming Threat
Gressel, G., Pankajakshan, R., & Mirsky, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Workshop on the Security Implications of Deepfakes and Cheapfakes · doi:10.1145/3660354.3660356 · Cited by 17 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Consequences include efforts to defraud individuals [43,44] and modify deceptive statements to appear truthful to humans [45].”
People judge others more harshly after talking to bots
Tey, K. S., Mazar, A., Tomaino, G., Duckworth, A. L., & Ungar, L. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae397 · Cited by 13 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We obtained the same number of texts from the LLM.”
Large Language Models respond to Influence like Humans
Griffin, L. D., Kleinberg, B., Mozes, M., Mai, K. T., Vau, M. D. M., Caldwell, M., & Mavor-Parker, A. N. (2023) · Workshop on Social Influence in Conversations (SICon) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.sicon-1.3 · Cited by 8 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Using that approach led to the discovery of racial prejudices in LLMs [21], proneness to cognitive biases [22], illusory truth effects in LLMs [23] and early efforts on testing a theory of mind in AI models [24,25].”
Self-citationA repeated-measures study on emotional responses after a year in the pandemic
Mozes, M., van der Vegt, I., & Kleinberg, B. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02414-9 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationEffective faking of verbal deception detection with target‐aligned adversarial attacks
Kleinberg, B., Loconte, R., & Verschuère, B. (2025) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1111/lcrp.70001 · Cited by 3 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We obtained the same number of texts from the LLM.”
Self-citationBLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model
Workshop, B., :, Scao, T. L., Fan, A., Akiki, C., Pavlick, E., Ilić, S., Hesslow, D., Castagné, R., Luccioni, A. S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.05100 · cited 1×
“Those that failed the manipulation check were excluded ( n =78).”
Flagged first, then by citations
8 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Curran Associates, Inc.; 1877-1901 https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/ 2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf (2020).
- Sedoc, J. et al., editors. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. Marseille, France: European Language Resources Association; 1664-1673 https://aclanthology. org/2020.lrec-1.206/ (2020).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents
Peter, S., Riemer, K., & West, J. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2415898122 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Effective faking of verbal deception detection with target‐aligned adversarial attacks
Kleinberg, B., Loconte, R., & Verschuère, B. (2025) · Legal and Criminological Psychology · doi:10.1111/lcrp.70001 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kleinberg, B., Zegers, J., Festor, J., Vida, S., Präsent, J., Loconte, R., & Peereboom, S.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Kleinberg, Bennett
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.01675
- PMC
- PMC13635098
- OpenAlex
- W4403852022
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- large language models, perceived humanness, relationship advice, computational text analysis
- MeSH terms
- Large Language Models, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Adult, Empathy, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Young Adult
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
