ChatGPT 的思维理论是典型的还是非典型的?

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Frontiers in Psychology Pub Date : 2024-10-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1488172
Margherita Attanasio, Monica Mazza, Ilenia Le Donne, Francesco Masedu, Maria Paola Greco, Marco Valenti
{"title":"ChatGPT 的思维理论是典型的还是非典型的?","authors":"Margherita Attanasio, Monica Mazza, Ilenia Le Donne, Francesco Masedu, Maria Paola Greco, Marco Valenti","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1488172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent years, the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to imitate human behavioral patterns have been attracting growing interest from experimental psychology. Although ChatGPT can successfully generate accurate theoretical and inferential information in several fields, its ability to exhibit a Theory of Mind (ToM) is a topic of debate and interest in literature. Impairments in ToM are considered responsible for social difficulties in many clinical conditions, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Some studies showed that ChatGPT can successfully pass classical ToM tasks, however, the response style used by LLMs to solve advanced ToM tasks, comparing their abilities with those of typical development (TD) individuals and clinical populations, has not been explored. In this preliminary study, we administered the Advanced ToM Test and the Emotion Attribution Task to ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT-4 and compared their responses with those of an ASD and TD group. Our results showed that the two LLMs had higher accuracy in understanding mental states, although ChatGPT-3.5 failed with more complex mental states. In understanding emotional states, ChatGPT-3.5 performed significantly worse than TDs but did not differ from ASDs, showing difficulty with negative emotions. ChatGPT-4 achieved higher accuracy, but difficulties with recognizing sadness and anger persisted. The style adopted by both LLMs appeared verbose, and repetitive, tending to violate Grice's maxims. This conversational style seems similar to that adopted by high-functioning ASDs. Clinical implications and potential applications are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"15 ","pages":"1488172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11554496/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does ChatGPT have a typical or atypical theory of mind?\",\"authors\":\"Margherita Attanasio, Monica Mazza, Ilenia Le Donne, Francesco Masedu, Maria Paola Greco, Marco Valenti\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1488172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In recent years, the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to imitate human behavioral patterns have been attracting growing interest from experimental psychology. Although ChatGPT can successfully generate accurate theoretical and inferential information in several fields, its ability to exhibit a Theory of Mind (ToM) is a topic of debate and interest in literature. Impairments in ToM are considered responsible for social difficulties in many clinical conditions, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Some studies showed that ChatGPT can successfully pass classical ToM tasks, however, the response style used by LLMs to solve advanced ToM tasks, comparing their abilities with those of typical development (TD) individuals and clinical populations, has not been explored. In this preliminary study, we administered the Advanced ToM Test and the Emotion Attribution Task to ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT-4 and compared their responses with those of an ASD and TD group. Our results showed that the two LLMs had higher accuracy in understanding mental states, although ChatGPT-3.5 failed with more complex mental states. In understanding emotional states, ChatGPT-3.5 performed significantly worse than TDs but did not differ from ASDs, showing difficulty with negative emotions. ChatGPT-4 achieved higher accuracy, but difficulties with recognizing sadness and anger persisted. The style adopted by both LLMs appeared verbose, and repetitive, tending to violate Grice's maxims. This conversational style seems similar to that adopted by high-functioning ASDs. Clinical implications and potential applications are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"1488172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11554496/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1488172\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1488172","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,大型语言模型(LLM)(如 ChatGPT)模仿人类行为模式的能力越来越受到实验心理学的关注。虽然 ChatGPT 能在多个领域成功生成准确的理论和推理信息,但它是否能表现出心智理论(ToM)却是文献中争论和关注的话题。心智理论(ToM)的缺陷被认为是自闭症(ASD)等许多临床疾病造成社交障碍的原因。一些研究表明,ChatGPT 可以成功地通过经典 ToM 任务,然而,LLMs 在解决高级 ToM 任务时所使用的反应方式,以及将其与典型发育(TD)个体和临床人群的能力进行比较,尚未得到探讨。在这项初步研究中,我们对 ChatGPT 3.5 和 ChatGPT-4 进行了高级 ToM 测试和情感归因任务,并将他们的反应与 ASD 和 TD 组的反应进行了比较。我们的结果表明,虽然 ChatGPT-3.5 在理解更复杂的心理状态时失败了,但这两种 LLM 在理解心理状态方面具有更高的准确性。在理解情绪状态方面,ChatGPT-3.5 的表现明显比 TD 差,但与 ASD 没有区别,在负面情绪方面表现出了困难。ChatGPT-4 的准确率较高,但在识别悲伤和愤怒方面仍然存在困难。这两种 LLM 所采用的风格都显得冗长、重复,有违反格莱斯格言的倾向。这种会话风格似乎与高功能自闭症患者所采用的风格相似。本文讨论了其临床意义和潜在应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Does ChatGPT have a typical or atypical theory of mind?

In recent years, the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to imitate human behavioral patterns have been attracting growing interest from experimental psychology. Although ChatGPT can successfully generate accurate theoretical and inferential information in several fields, its ability to exhibit a Theory of Mind (ToM) is a topic of debate and interest in literature. Impairments in ToM are considered responsible for social difficulties in many clinical conditions, such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Some studies showed that ChatGPT can successfully pass classical ToM tasks, however, the response style used by LLMs to solve advanced ToM tasks, comparing their abilities with those of typical development (TD) individuals and clinical populations, has not been explored. In this preliminary study, we administered the Advanced ToM Test and the Emotion Attribution Task to ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT-4 and compared their responses with those of an ASD and TD group. Our results showed that the two LLMs had higher accuracy in understanding mental states, although ChatGPT-3.5 failed with more complex mental states. In understanding emotional states, ChatGPT-3.5 performed significantly worse than TDs but did not differ from ASDs, showing difficulty with negative emotions. ChatGPT-4 achieved higher accuracy, but difficulties with recognizing sadness and anger persisted. The style adopted by both LLMs appeared verbose, and repetitive, tending to violate Grice's maxims. This conversational style seems similar to that adopted by high-functioning ASDs. Clinical implications and potential applications are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
13.20%
发文量
7396
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.
期刊最新文献
Capturing spontaneous interactivity: a multi-measure approach to analyzing the dynamics of interpersonal coordination in dance improvisation. Editorial: Animacy in cognition: effects, mechanisms, and theories. Social and ethical impact of emotional AI advancement: the rise of pseudo-intimacy relationships and challenges in human interactions. The relationship between distress tolerance and life satisfaction among young adults in Saudi Arabia. The role of information and participation in overcoming users' initial reluctance: a case study of a decentralized wastewater treatment plant.
×
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