Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Framework
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have potential to exhibit human-like psychology
- Existing works have studied virtual personalities of LLMs but not analyzed human personalities via LLMs
- Authors present a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests
- Framework involves devising unbiased prompts by randomly permuting options in MBTI questions and adopting the average testing result to encourage more impartial answer generation
- The authors propose replacing the subject in question statements to enable flexible queries and assessments on different subjects from LLMs
- They re-formulate the question instructions in a manner of correctness evaluation to facilitate LLMs to generate clearer responses.
- This framework enables LLMs to flexibly assess personalities of different groups of people.
- Three evaluation metrics proposed: consistency, robustness, and fairness of assessment results from state-of-the-art LLMs including ChatGPT and InstructGPT.
- Experiments reveal ChatGPT's ability to assess human personalities with consistent and fairer assessments despite lower robustness against prompt biases compared with InstructGPT.
- This study opens up new avenues for exploring how AI can better understand human psychology.
Authors: Haocong Rao, Cyril Leung, Chunyan Miao
Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) especially ChatGPT have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored. Existing works study the virtual personalities of LLMs but rarely explore the possibility of analyzing human personalities via LLMs. This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests. Specifically, we first devise unbiased prompts by randomly permuting options in MBTI questions and adopt the average testing result to encourage more impartial answer generation. Then, we propose to replace the subject in question statements to enable flexible queries and assessments on different subjects from LLMs. Finally, we re-formulate the question instructions in a manner of correctness evaluation to facilitate LLMs to generate clearer responses. The proposed framework enables LLMs to flexibly assess personalities of different groups of people. We further propose three evaluation metrics to measure the consistency, robustness, and fairness of assessment results from state-of-the-art LLMs including ChatGPT and InstructGPT. Our experiments reveal ChatGPT's ability to assess human personalities, and the average results demonstrate that it can achieve more consistent and fairer assessments in spite of lower robustness against prompt biases compared with InstructGPT.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.