Abstract:Today, with the advent of Large-scale generative Language Models (LLMs) it is now possible to simulate free responses to interview questions such as those traditionally analyzed using qualitative research methods. Qualitative methodology encompasses a broad family of techniques involving manual analysis of open-ended interviews or conversations conducted freely in natural language. Here we consider whether artificial "silicon participants" generated by LLMs may be productively studied using qualitative analysis methods in such a way as to generate insights that could generalize to real human populations. The key concept in our analysis is algorithmic fidelity , a validity concept capturing the degree to which LLM-generated outputs mirror human sub-populations' beliefs and attitudes. By definition, high algorithmic fidelity suggests that latent beliefs elicited from LLMs may generalize to real humans, whereas low algorithmic fidelity renders such research invalid. Here we used an LLM to generate interviews with "silicon participants" matching specific demographic characteristics one-for-one with a set of human participants. Using framework-based qualitative analysis, we showed the key themes obtained from both human and silicon participants were strikingly similar. However, when we analyzed the structure and tone of the interviews we found even more striking differences. We also found evidence of a hyper-accuracy distortion. We conclude that the LLM we tested (GPT-3.5) does not have sufficient algorithmic fidelity to expect in silico research on it to generalize to real human populations. However, rapid advances in artificial intelligence raise the possibility that algorithmic fidelity may improve in the future. Thus we stress the need to establish epistemic norms now around how to assess the validity of LLM-based qualitative research, especially concerning the need to ensure the representation of heterogeneous lived experiences.

Measuring Latent Trust Patterns in Large Language Models in the Context of Human-AI Teaming

From traces to measures: Large language models as a tool for psychological measurement from text

Quantifying AI Psychology: A Psychometrics Benchmark for Large Language Models

Believing Anthropomorphism: Examining the Role of Anthropomorphic Cues on Trust in Large Language Models

Cognitive phantoms in LLMs through the lens of latent variables

Tell me the truth: A system to measure the trustworthiness of Large Language Models

XTRUST: On the Multilingual Trustworthiness of Large Language Models

AI Psychometrics: Assessing the Psychological Profiles of Large Language Models Through Psychometric Inventories

How to Measure the Intelligence of Large Language Models?

Quantitative Insights into Language Model Usage and Trust in Academia: An Empirical Study

A method to assess trustworthiness of machine coding at scale

Can Large Language Model Agents Simulate Human Trust Behavior?

Establishing Trustworthiness: Rethinking Tasks and Model Evaluation

Measuring Human and AI Values based on Generative Psychometrics with Large Language Models

The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models

Why Would You Suggest That? Human Trust in Language Model Responses

Confidence Under the Hood: An Investigation into the Confidence-Probability Alignment in Large Language Models

Framework-based qualitative analysis of free responses of Large Language Models: Algorithmic fidelity

Predicting Human Trustfulness from Facebook Language

Risks from Language Models for Automated Mental Healthcare: Ethics and Structure for Implementation

Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models for Automation in Technical Customer Service