Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models

IF 4.7 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Analysis Pub Date : 2024-05-17 DOI:10.1017/pan.2024.5
James Bisbee, Joshua D. Clinton, C. Dorff, Brenton Kenkel, Jennifer M. Larson
{"title":"Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models","authors":"James Bisbee, Joshua D. Clinton, C. Dorff, Brenton Kenkel, Jennifer M. Larson","doi":"10.1017/pan.2024.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Large language models (LLMs) offer new research possibilities for social scientists, but their potential as “synthetic data” is still largely unknown. In this paper, we investigate how accurately the popular LLM ChatGPT can recover public opinion, prompting the LLM to adopt different “personas” and then provide feeling thermometer scores for 11 sociopolitical groups. The average scores generated by ChatGPT correspond closely to the averages in our baseline survey, the 2016–2020 American National Election Study (ANES). Nevertheless, sampling by ChatGPT is not reliable for statistical inference: there is less variation in responses than in the real surveys, and regression coefficients often differ significantly from equivalent estimates obtained using ANES data. We also document how the distribution of synthetic responses varies with minor changes in prompt wording, and we show how the same prompt yields significantly different results over a 3-month period. Altogether, our findings raise serious concerns about the quality, reliability, and reproducibility of synthetic survey data generated by LLMs.","PeriodicalId":48270,"journal":{"name":"Political Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2024.5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) offer new research possibilities for social scientists, but their potential as “synthetic data” is still largely unknown. In this paper, we investigate how accurately the popular LLM ChatGPT can recover public opinion, prompting the LLM to adopt different “personas” and then provide feeling thermometer scores for 11 sociopolitical groups. The average scores generated by ChatGPT correspond closely to the averages in our baseline survey, the 2016–2020 American National Election Study (ANES). Nevertheless, sampling by ChatGPT is not reliable for statistical inference: there is less variation in responses than in the real surveys, and regression coefficients often differ significantly from equivalent estimates obtained using ANES data. We also document how the distribution of synthetic responses varies with minor changes in prompt wording, and we show how the same prompt yields significantly different results over a 3-month period. Altogether, our findings raise serious concerns about the quality, reliability, and reproducibility of synthetic survey data generated by LLMs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人工调查数据的合成替代品?大型语言模型的危险
大型语言模型(LLM)为社会科学家提供了新的研究可能性,但它们作为 "合成数据 "的潜力在很大程度上仍不为人所知。在本文中,我们研究了广受欢迎的大型语言模型 ChatGPT 在恢复民意方面的准确性,促使大型语言模型采用不同的 "角色",然后为 11 个社会政治团体提供感觉温度计分数。ChatGPT 得出的平均分与我们的基线调查--2016-2020 年美国全国大选研究(ANES)--的平均分非常接近。尽管如此,ChatGPT 的抽样对于统计推断并不可靠:与真实调查相比,回答的变化较小,回归系数往往与使用 ANES 数据获得的等效估计值相差很大。我们还记录了合成回答的分布如何随着提示措辞的细微变化而变化,并展示了同一提示在 3 个月内如何产生显著不同的结果。总之,我们的研究结果引起了人们对由 LLM 生成的合成调查数据的质量、可靠性和可重复性的严重担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Analysis
Political Analysis POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field. It is the place to learn new methods, to find some of the best empirical scholarship, and to publish your best research.
期刊最新文献
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models NonRandom Tweet Mortality and Data Access Restrictions: Compromising the Replication of Sensitive Twitter Studies Generalizing toward Nonrespondents: Effect Estimates in Survey Experiments Are Broadly Similar for Eager and Reluctant Participants Estimators for Topic-Sampling Designs Flexible Estimation of Policy Preferences for Witnesses in Committee Hearings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1