REVIEW 2 cited by
Humans vs Large Language Models: Judgmental Forecasting in an Era of Advanced AI
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This study investigates the forecasting accuracy of human experts versus Large Language Models (LLMs) in the retail sector, particularly during standard and promotional sales periods. Utilizing a controlled experimental setup with 123 human forecasters and five LLMs, including ChatGPT4, ChatGPT3.5, Bard, Bing, and Llama2, we evaluated forecasting precision through Mean Absolute Percentage Error. Our analysis centered on the effect of the following factors on forecasters performance: the supporting statistical model (baseline and advanced), whether the product was on promotion, and the nature of external impact. The findings indicate that LLMs do not consistently outperform humans in forecasting accuracy and that advanced statistical forecasting models do not uniformly enhance the performance of either human forecasters or LLMs. Both human and LLM forecasters exhibited increased forecasting errors, particularly during promotional periods and under the influence of positive external impacts. Our findings call for careful consideration when integrating LLMs into practical forecasting processes.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Predicting Empirical AI Research Outcomes with Language Models
A fine-tuned, retrieval-augmented language model predicts which of two AI research ideas will perform better empirically, beating human experts and frontier models on a new contamination-controlled benchmark.
-
Argumentatively Coherent Judgmental Forecasting
Filtering forecasts that are incoherent with their argumentative reasoning improved accuracy in human and LLM experiments, though users do not naturally follow the proposed coherence notion.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.