ArticleScientific reports2025
ChatGPT does not replicate human moral judgments: the importance of examining metrics beyond correlation to assess agreement.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Moral stereotyping in large language models.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise of generative artificial intelligence has prompted claims that large language models (LLMs) can substitute for human participants, particularly in moral judgment tasks where correlations between ChatGPT and humans approach r = 1.00. In response, we conducted a pre-registered study where two LLMs (text-davinci-003 and GPT-4o) predicted human moral judgments of 60 scenarios prior to a large human sample (N = 940) rating them. Despite strong correlations, difference scores revealed substantial, systematic errors: Compared to humans, LLMs provided more extreme morality ratings of moral and neutral scenarios and more extreme immorality ratings of immoral ones. Moreover, ChatGPT differed significantly and with moderate to large effect sizes from human averages on ~ 87% of scenarios. Further, LLM ratings clustered around a restricted number of values, failing to reflect human variability. Re-examination of earlier published data also reflected this clumping. We conclude that broader evaluation criteria are needed for comparing LLM predictions and human responses in moral reasoning tasks.
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.