REVIEW 2 cited by
Using Large Language Models to Simulate Human Behavioural Experiments: Port of Mars
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
Collective risk social dilemmas (CRSD) highlight a trade-off between individual preferences and the need for all to contribute toward achieving a group objective. Problems such as climate change are in this category, and so it is critical to understand their social underpinnings. However, rigorous CRSD methodology often demands large-scale human experiments but it is difficult to guarantee sufficient power and heterogeneity over socio-demographic factors. Generative AI offers a potential complementary approach to address thisproblem. By replacing human participants with large language models (LLM), it allows for a scalable empirical framework. This paper focuses on the validity of this approach and whether it is feasible to represent a large-scale human-like experiment with sufficient diversity using LLM. In particular, where previous literature has focused on political surveys, virtual towns and classical game-theoretic examples, we focus on a complex CRSD used in the institutional economics and sustainability literature known as Port of Mars
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Can LLMs Think Like Consumers? Benchmarking Crowd-Level Reaction Reconstruction with ConsumerSimBench
ConsumerSimBench evaluates 13 LLMs on reconstructing crowd reactions from 1,553 Chinese social-media topics using 23,122 auditable yes-no criteria, finding maximum coverage of 47.8% by Gemini-3.1-Pro.
-
Evaluating Cooperation in LLM Social Groups through Elected Leadership
Elected leadership in LLM multi-agent simulations of common-pool resource governance raises social welfare scores by 55.4% and survival time by 128.6%.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.