Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Is ChatGPT More Empathetic than Humans?

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 2403.05572 v1 pith:YYM44BES submitted 2024-02-22 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL

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

This paper investigates the empathetic responding capabilities of ChatGPT, particularly its latest iteration, GPT-4, in comparison to human-generated responses to a wide range of emotional scenarios, both positive and negative. We employ a rigorous evaluation methodology, involving a between-groups study with 600 participants, to evaluate the level of empathy in responses generated by humans and ChatGPT. ChatGPT is prompted in two distinct ways: a standard approach and one explicitly detailing empathy's cognitive, affective, and compassionate counterparts. Our findings indicate that the average empathy rating of responses generated by ChatGPT exceeds those crafted by humans by approximately 10%. Additionally, instructing ChatGPT to incorporate a clear understanding of empathy in its responses makes the responses align approximately 5 times more closely with the expectations of individuals possessing a high degree of empathy, compared to human responses. The proposed evaluation framework serves as a scalable and adaptable framework to assess the empathetic capabilities of newer and updated versions of large language models, eliminating the need to replicate the current study's results in future research.

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

  1. Towards Personalized Explanations for Health Simulations: A Mixed-Methods Framework for Stakeholder-Centric Summarization

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A mixed-methods framework that elicits stakeholder preferences and steers LLMs to generate tailored summaries of health simulations, presented without empirical validation.

Pith tools