ArticleScientific reports2025
Me vs. the machine? Subjective evaluations of human- and AI-generated advice.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived humanness and empathy are dissociated in relationship advice generated by a large language model.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The impact of generative AI on social media: an experimental study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- People choose to receive human empathy despite rating AI empathy higher.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Understanding purchase intention for genAI-enabled museum cultural and creative products using a SOR model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A moral Turing test: How belief and source shape detection of and agreement with LLM judgments.PloS one · 2026Article
- A meta-analysis of the persuasive power of large language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Patient insights into empathy, compassion and self-disclosure in medical large language models: results from the IPALLM III study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence ("AI") has the potential to vastly improve human decision-making. In line with this, researchers have increasingly sought to understand how people view AI, often documenting skepticism and even outright aversion to these tools. In the present research, we complement these findings by documenting the performance of LLMs in the personal advice domain. In addition, we shift the focus in a new direction-exploring how interacting with AI tools, specifically large language models, impacts the user's view of themselves. In five preregistered experiments (N = 1,722), we explore evaluations of human- and ChatGPT-generated advice along three dimensions: quality, effectiveness, and authenticity. We find that ChatGPT produces superior advice relative to the average online participant even in a domain in which people strongly prefer human-generated advice (dating and relationships). We also document a bias against ChatGPT-generated advice which is present only when participants are aware the advice was generated by ChatGPT. Novel to the present investigation, we then explore how interacting with these tools impacts self-evaluations. We manipulate the order in which people interact with these tools relative to self-generation and find that generating advice before interacting with ChatGPT advice boosts the quality ratings of the ChatGPT advice. At the same time, interacting with ChatGPT-generated advice before self-generating advice decreases self-ratings of authenticity. Taken together, we document a bias towards AI in the context of personal advice. Further, we identify an important externality in the use of these tools-they can invoke social comparisons of me vs. the machine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.