3 ms·

GPT-4 is 82% more persuasive than humans, and AIs can now read emotions

34 points by peutetre 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwaway888abc 3y ago
[Submitted on 21 Mar 2024] On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14380 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14380
bamboozled 3y ago
It's read all the Machiavelli, the takeover has begun.
shiroiushi 3y ago
>GPT-4 is 82% more persuasive than humans, That's a pretty low bar. Most humans these days aren't persuasive at all. They also don't write very well (even in their native language), whereas ChatGPT has excellent writing skills.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  It helps that they also do not read very well and have a very short attention span. It is easier to convince the modern human with very short text ‘prompting’ in video form than writing something. Most people reading this comment will never read this last sentence.
s4mw1se 3y ago
This is interesting. part of me makes me wonder if they are so persuasive because we have been desensitized to what quality content look like in a SEO dominated world. I say this because my go to search method has become Gen AI for most things and this is mainly because it’s worked better in terms of accuracy. The things I know nothing about like, “How do I take care of a crabapple tree” i’m going to trust more then a top ranking blog post because I have no experincce, time, or willingness to verify the information from the Blog or Gen AI. The Gen AI just gets to the point and give me more in-depth responses with the ability to questions its answers or re-prompt. I still have no idea how accurate it as long as it seems logical enough to me. With things I do have experince with, I generally have tools already in place to check its work and tell if it’s off. A good example is with golang, claude tells me to use deprecated packages. Linters tell me it’s wrong. I’ll ask it to do taint analysis on code or some other type of static analysis or reverse engineering and it’s almost always right. If not i can easily tell what’s wrong. It being mostly right in areas i have experince with makes me assume it’s mostly right in all general areas. I can absolutely see how they can be more persuasive. Having worked in sales, small humanisms(?) physical or verbal will quickly make me disregard their authority on a subject. Gen AI is really good at talking smoothly and has no mannerisms.
xarope 3y ago
Isn't it simply because training data by definition is from the internet, which is highly SEO'd.
jasonjmcghee 3y ago
The linked Arxiv paper also says humans could tell they were talking to AI 3/4 of the time. It would be interesting to do a follow up study to translate all human responses to "sound like AI" in order to eliminate the possibility that humans are finding themselves more easily convinced by GPT-4 because it is GPT-4. Page 31 is a super interesting page too.

34 points by peutetre 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

[Submitted on 21 Mar 2024] On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14380 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14380

bamboozled 3y ago

It's read all the Machiavelli, the takeover has begun.

shiroiushi 3y ago

>GPT-4 is 82% more persuasive than humans, That's a pretty low bar. Most humans these days aren't persuasive at all. They also don't write very well (even in their native language), whereas ChatGPT has excellent writing skills.

anonzzzies 3y ago
It helps that they also do not read very well and have a very short attention span. It is easier to convince the modern human with very short text ‘prompting’ in video form than writing something. Most people reading this comment will never read this last sentence.

s4mw1se 3y ago

This is interesting. part of me makes me wonder if they are so persuasive because we have been desensitized to what quality content look like in a SEO dominated world. I say this because my go to search method has become Gen AI for most things and this is mainly because it’s worked better in terms of accuracy. The things I know nothing about like, “How do I take care of a crabapple tree” i’m going to trust more then a top ranking blog post because I have no experincce, time, or willingness to verify the information from the Blog or Gen AI. The Gen AI just gets to the point and give me more in-depth responses with the ability to questions its answers or re-prompt. I still have no idea how accurate it as long as it seems logical enough to me. With things I do have experince with, I generally have tools already in place to check its work and tell if it’s off. A good example is with golang, claude tells me to use deprecated packages. Linters tell me it’s wrong. I’ll ask it to do taint analysis on code or some other type of static analysis or reverse engineering and it’s almost always right. If not i can easily tell what’s wrong. It being mostly right in areas i have experince with makes me assume it’s mostly right in all general areas. I can absolutely see how they can be more persuasive. Having worked in sales, small humanisms(?) physical or verbal will quickly make me disregard their authority on a subject. Gen AI is really good at talking smoothly and has no mannerisms.

xarope 3y ago

Isn't it simply because training data by definition is from the internet, which is highly SEO'd.

jasonjmcghee 3y ago

The linked Arxiv paper also says humans could tell they were talking to AI 3/4 of the time. It would be interesting to do a follow up study to translate all human responses to "sound like AI" in order to eliminate the possibility that humans are finding themselves more easily convinced by GPT-4 because it is GPT-4. Page 31 is a super interesting page too.