Evaluating the ability of large Language models to predict human social decisions.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have highlighted their potential to predict human decisions. In two studies, we compared predictions by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across 51 scenarios (9,600 responses) against published data from 2,104 human participants within an evolutionary-psychology framework. We further examined our findings with GPT-4o across eight social-group and kinship conditions (1,600 responses). Our results revealed behavioral differences between humans and LLMs' predictions: Humans showed a greater sensitivity to kinship and group size than the LLMs when making life-death decisions. LLMs align closer with humans with a higher risk-seeking preference in financial domains. While human choices followed Prospect theory's value function (risk-averse in gains, risk-seeking in losses), LLMs often predicted reversed patterns. GPT-3.5 matched the average level of human risk preference but showed reversed framing effects; GPT-4 was indiscriminately risk-averse across social contexts. While humans were more risk-seeking in small or kin groups than in large groups, GPT-4o made the opposite predictions. Our results suggest a set of criteria for a psychological version of the Turing Test reflected in framing effects and social context-dependent risk preference involving kinship, group size, social relations, sense of fairness, self-age awareness, public vs. personal properties, and social group-dependent aspiration levels.