评估大型语言模型的本质：警惕人类中心主义
Assessing the nature of large language models: A caution against anthropocentrism
AI总结：
本研究通过标准化认知和人格测量工具评估了GPT 3.5等LLM，发现其不具备感知能力，且在重复测试中表现出极大的不稳定性，同时展现出类似人类心理健康不佳的特征，警示人们应警惕对AI的人类中心主义倾向。
摘要：
随着OpenAI的聊天机器人ChatGPT的发布，生成式AI模型引起了公众的大量关注和猜测。目前至少存在两种观点阵营：一种对这些模型为人类任务带来根本性改变的可能性感到兴奋，另一种则对这些模型似乎拥有的能力深感担忧。为了应对这些担忧，我们评估了几个LLM，主要是GPT 3.5，使用了标准的、规范化的且经过验证的认知和人格测量工具。对于这个初步探索项目，我们开发了一系列测试，使我们能够估计这些模型某些能力的边界、这些能力在短时间内的稳定性，以及它们与人类的比较情况。我们的结果表明，LLM不太可能发展出感知能力，尽管其响应人格问卷的能力很有趣。GPT3.5在重复观察中确实在认知和人格测量上表现出巨大的变异性，如果它具有类人人格，这是不应该出现的。尽管存在变异性，LLM表现出了在人类身上会被视为心理健康状况不佳的特征，包括低自尊、与现实明显脱节，以及在某些情况下的自恋和精神病态，尽管其回应是积极且乐于助人的。
英文摘要：
Generative AI models garnered a large amount of public attention and speculation with the release of OpenAIs chatbot, ChatGPT. At least two opinion camps exist: one excited about possibilities these models offer for fundamental changes to human tasks, and another highly concerned about power these models seem to have. To address these concerns, we assessed several LLMs, primarily GPT 3.5, using standard, normed, and validated cognitive and personality measures. For this seedling project, we developed a battery of tests that allowed us to estimate the boundaries of some of these models capabilities, how stable those capabilities are over a short period of time, and how they compare to humans. Our results indicate that LLMs are unlikely to have developed sentience, although its ability to respond to personality inventories is interesting. GPT3.5 did display large variability in both cognitive and personality measures over repeated observations, which is not expected if it had a human-like personality. Variability notwithstanding, LLMs display what in a human would be considered poor mental health, including low self-esteem, marked dissociation from reality, and in some cases narcissism and psychopathy, despite upbeat and helpful responses.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
