LLM Cognitive Judgements Differ From Human

Sotiris Lamprinidis

LLM Cognitive Judgements Differ From Human

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

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 2307.11787 v2 pith:Q6T2CBHX submitted 2023-07-20 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Sotiris Lamprinidis This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG

keywords cognitivemodelsbeencapabilitiesjudgementsalikebusinesseschatgpt

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

0 comments

read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have lately been on the spotlight of researchers, businesses, and consumers alike. While the linguistic capabilities of such models have been studied extensively, there is growing interest in investigating them as cognitive subjects. In the present work I examine GPT-3 and ChatGPT capabilities on an limited-data inductive reasoning task from the cognitive science literature. The results suggest that these models' cognitive judgements are not human-like.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

The Anatomy of Speech Persuasion: Linguistic Shifts in LLM-Modified Speeches
cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

GPT-4o increases emotional lexicon and uses more questions and exclamations when asked to strengthen speeches, but follows a surface style rather than human-like persuasive argumentation.

Pith tools