CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Game Theory and Voting SystemsEthics and Social Impacts of AIEconomic theories and models

Artificial Intelligence Clones

Open access
Liang, Annie·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2501.16996arXiv 2501.16996
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large language models, trained on personal data, are increasingly able to mimic individual personalities. These ``AI clones'' or ``AI agents'' have the potential to transform how people search for matches in contexts ranging from marriage to employment. This paper presents a theoretical framework to study the tradeoff between the substantially expanded search capacity of AI representations and their imperfect representation of humans. An individual's personality is modeled as a point in $k$-dimensional Euclidean space, and an individual's AI representation is modeled as a noisy approximation of that personality. I compare two search regimes: Under in person search, each person randomly meets some number of individuals and matches to the most compatible among them; under AI-mediated search, individuals match to the person with the most compatible AI representation. I show that a finite number of in-person encounters yields a better expected match than search over infinite AI representations. Moreover, when personality is sufficiently high-dimensional, simply meeting two people in person is more effective than search on an AI platform, regardless of the size of its candidate pool.

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.2501.16996

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?

  • When preferences are high-dimensional, even small errors in reporting can propagate, making the underlying alignment task inherently more difficult.

    “When preferences are high-dimensional, even small errors in reporting can propagate (Liang 2025), making the underlying alignment task inherently more difficult.”

    From The Coasean Singularity? Demand, Supply, and Market Design with AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Liang 2025

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: 25

  1. Aher, G. V., R. I. Arriaga, and A. T. Kalai (2023): "Using Large Lan- guage Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Stud- ies," in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ed.
  2. by A. Krause, E. Brunskill, K. Cho, B. Engelhardt, S. Sabato, and J. Scarlett, PMLR, vol. 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 337-371.
  3. Athey, S. (2002): "Monotone Comparative Statics under Uncertainty," The Quar- terly Journal of Economics, 117, 187-223.
  4. Callander, S. (2011): "Searching for Good Policies," American Political Science Review, 105, 643-662.
  5. Chade, H., J. Eeckhout, and L. Smith (2017): "Sorting through Search and Matching Models in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, 55, 493-544.
  6. Christiano, P. F., J. Leike, T. B. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei (2017): "Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 4302-4310.
  7. Cornell, B. and I. Welch (1996): "Culture, Information, and Screening Dis- crimination," Journal of Political Economy, 104, 542-571.
  8. Dasaratha, K., B. Golub, and N. Hak (2023): "Learning from Neighbours about a Changing State," Review of Economic Studies, 90, 2326-2369.
  9. Ely, J. C. (2011): "Kludged," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3, 210-231.
  10. Fudenberg, D. and D. K. Levine (2022): "Intervention with limited informa- tion," International Journal of Game Theory, 51, 379-389, published online 19 October 2021.
  11. Harel, M., E. Mossel, P. Strack, and O. Tamuz (2021): "Rational Group- think," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136, 621-668, published: 08 July 2020.
  12. Joel, S., P. W. Eastwick, C. J. Allison, X. B. Arriaga, Z. G. Baker, E. Barr-Kalif, and et al. (2020): "Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 19061-19071.
  13. Kleinberg, J., H. Lakkaraju, J. Leskovec, J. Ludwig, and S. Mul- lainathan (2017): "Human Decisions and Machine Predictions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 237-293.
  14. Liang, A. and X. Mu (2020): "Complementary Information and Learning Traps*," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135, 389-448.
  15. Lin, B. (2024): "Grindr Aims to Build the Dating World's First AI 'Wingman'," The Wall Street Journal, accessed: 2025-02-15.
  16. McCall, J. J. (1970): "Economics of Information and Job Search," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 113-126.
  17. Mei, Q., Y. Xie, W. Yuan, and M. O. Jackson (2024): "A Turing test of whether AI chatbots are behaviorally similar to humans," Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 121, e2313925121.
  18. Milgrom, P. R. (1981): "Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications," The Bell Journal of Economics, 12, 380-391.
  19. Park, J. S., C. Q. Zou, A. Shaw, B. M. Hill, C. Cai, M. R. Morris, R. Willer, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein (2024): "Generative Agent Sim- ulations of 1,000 People," arXiv, accessed 2025-01-01.
  20. Roth, A. E. and M. Sotomayor (1992): "Two-Sided Matching," in Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, vol. 1, 485-541.
  21. Sarkar, S. K. (2025): "AI Agents, Productivity, and Higher-Order Thinking: Early Evidence from Software Development," Preprint.
  22. Stigler, G. J. (1961): "The Economics of Information," Journal of Political Econ- omy, 69, 213-225.
  23. Urgun, C. and L. Yariv (2024): "Contiguous Search: Exploration and Ambi- tion on Uncharted Terrain," Journal of Political Economy, 132, published online December 18, 2024.
  24. Vives, X. (1992): "How Fast do Rational Agents Learn?" Review of Economic Studies, 60, 329-347.
  25. Árpád Baricz (2010): "Bounds for Modified Bessel Functions of the First and Second Kinds," Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, 53, 575-599.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liang, A.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Liang, Annie
ORCID
Liang, Annie
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2501.16996
arXiv
2501.16996
OpenAlex
W4406961317
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic theories and models
Keywords
large language models, personality matching, match quality, job matching

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