babylonpolice.com

arXiv:2404.16692v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We explored the addition bias, a cognitive tendency to prefer adding elements over removing them to alter an initial state or structure, by conducting four preregistered experiments examining the problem-solving behavior of both humans and OpenAl's GPT-4 large language model. The experiments involved 588 participants from the U.S. and 680 iterations of the GPT-4 model. The problem-solving task was either to create symmetry within a grid (Experiments 1 and 3) or to edit a summary (Experiments 2 and 4). As hypothesized, we found that overall, the addition bias was present. Solution efficiency (Experiments 1 and 2) and valence of the instruction (Experiments 3 and 4) played important roles. Human participants were less likely to use additive strategies when subtraction was relatively more efficient than when addition and subtraction were equally efficient. GPT-4 exhibited the opposite behavior, with a strong addition bias when subtraction was more efficient. In terms of instruction valence, GPT-4 was more likely to add words when asked to "improve" compared to "edit", whereas humans did not show this effect. When we looked at the addition bias under different conditions, we found more biased responses for GPT-4 compared to humans. Our findings highlight the importance of considering comparable and sometimes superior subtractive alternatives, as well as reevaluating one's own and particularly the language models' problem-solving behavior.