Search

The notion of common sense is invoked so frequently in contexts as diverse as everyday conversation, political debates, and evaluations of artificial intelligence that its meaning might be surmised to be unproblematic. Surprisingly, however, neither the intrinsic properties of common sense knowledge (what makes a claim commonsensical) nor the degree to which it is shared by people (its "commonness") have been characterized empirically. In this paper, we introduce an analytical framework for quantifying both these elements of common sense. First, we define the commonsensicality of individual claims and people in terms of the latter's propensity to agree on the former and their awareness of one another's agreement. Second, we formalize the commonness of common sense as a clique detection problem on a bipartite belief graph of people and claims, defining pq common sense as the fraction q of claims shared by a fraction p of people. Evaluating our framework on a dataset of 2,046 raters evaluating 4,407 diverse claims, we find that commonsensicality aligns most closely with plainly worded, fact-like statements about everyday physical reality. Psychometric attributes such as social perceptiveness influence individual common sense, but surprisingly demographic factors such as age or gender do not. Finally, we find that collective common sense is rare: At most, a small fraction p of people agree on more than a small fraction q of claims. Together, these results undercut universalistic beliefs about common sense and raise questions about its variability that are relevant both to human and artificial intelligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People want to "feel heard" to perceive that they are understood, validated, and valued. Can AI serve the deeply human function of making others feel heard? Our research addresses two fundamental issues: Can AI generate responses that make human recipients feel heard, and how do human recipients react when they believe the response comes from AI? We conducted an experiment and a follow-up study to disentangle the effects of actual source of a message and the presumed source. We found that AI-generated messages made recipients feel more heard than human-generated messages and that AI was better at detecting emotions. However, recipients felt less heard when they realized that a message came from AI (vs. human). Finally, in a follow-up study where the responses were rated by third-party raters, we found that compared with humans, AI demonstrated superior discipline in offering emotional support, a crucial element in making individuals feel heard, while avoiding excessive practical suggestions, which may be less effective in achieving this goal. Our research underscores the potential and limitations of AI in meeting human psychological needs. These findings suggest that while AI demonstrates enhanced capabilities to provide emotional support, the devaluation of AI responses poses a key challenge for effectively leveraging AI's capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We administer a Turing test to AI chatbots. We examine how chatbots behave in a suite of classic behavioral games that are designed to elicit characteristics such as trust, fairness, risk-aversion, cooperation, etc., as well as how they respond to a traditional Big-5 psychological survey that measures personality traits. ChatGPT-4 exhibits behavioral and personality traits that are statistically indistinguishable from a random human from tens of thousands of human subjects from more than 50 countries. Chatbots also modify their behavior based on previous experience and contexts "as if" they were learning from the interactions and change their behavior in response to different framings of the same strategic situation. Their behaviors are often distinct from average and modal human behaviors, in which case they tend to behave on the more altruistic and cooperative end of the distribution. We estimate that they act as if they are maximizing an average of their own and partner's payoffs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]