Exploring the Limits of Large Language Models as a Reflection of Human Cognition: An Illustration in the Context of Moral Judgement

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are increasingly used in research, ranging from simple writing assistance to complex data annotation tasks. Recently, some research has suggested that LLMs are able to reproduce human responses to psychological questions and may, therefore, be used as simulators of human participants in some psychological research. We caution against this approach. Based on machine learning research, we argue that LLMs are likely to behave differently on novel stimuli compared to human study participants. We exemplify this in an experiment regarding moral judgments, demonstrating that slight changes to the wording of 30 moral scenarios used in prior work significantly reduce the similarity between ratings made by humans and LLMs, although the magnitude of this reduction varies across models. Therefore, we advise researchers to validate the similarity between human and LLM responses for their specific experiment.