Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Do large language models resemble humans in language use?

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

arxiv 2303.08014 v2 pith:EZYCAVVB submitted 2023-03-10 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords languagechatgptvicunaexperimentswordsdifferentllmsmeanings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Vicuna have shown remarkable capacities in comprehending and producing language. However, their internal workings remain a black box, and it is unclear whether LLMs and chatbots can develop humanlike characteristics in language use. Cognitive scientists have devised many experiments that probe, and have made great progress in explaining, how people comprehend and produce language. We subjected ChatGPT and Vicuna to 12 of these experiments ranging from sounds to dialogue, preregistered and with 1000 runs (i.e., iterations) per experiment. ChatGPT and Vicuna replicated the human pattern of language use in 10 and 7 out of the 12 experiments, respectively. The models associated unfamiliar words with different meanings depending on their forms, continued to access recently encountered meanings of ambiguous words, reused recent sentence structures, attributed causality as a function of verb semantics, and accessed different meanings and retrieved different words depending on an interlocutor's identity. In addition, ChatGPT, but not Vicuna, nonliterally interpreted implausible sentences that were likely to have been corrupted by noise, drew reasonable inferences, and overlooked semantic fallacies in a sentence. Finally, unlike humans, neither model preferred using shorter words to convey less informative content, nor did they use context to resolve syntactic ambiguities. We discuss how these convergences and divergences may result from the transformer architecture. Overall, these experiments demonstrate that LLMs such as ChatGPT (and Vicuna to a lesser extent) are humanlike in many aspects of human language processing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Agent-Centric Projection of Prompting Techniques and Implications for Synthetic Training Data for Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper defines linear and non-linear interaction contexts for LLMs and conjectures that prompting techniques and multi-agent systems are equivalent projections of the same patterns.

  2. Syntactic Evolution in Language Usage

    cs.CL 2025-01 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    Analyzes early-2000s blog posts to claim that syntactic complexity rises with age, while GPT-4 output does not show the same age-related complexity trend.

Pith tools