# Use of probabilistic phrases in a coordination game: human versus GPT-4

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10544 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10544/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 48 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Oct 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Language Models Represent Space and Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02207/) (2023)
- [The Debate Over Understanding in AI's Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13966/) (2022)
- [AI-assisted coding: Experiments with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13187/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

English speakers use probabilistic phrases such as likely to communicate information about the probability or likelihood of events. Communication is successful to the extent that the listener grasps what the speaker means to convey and, if communication is successful, individuals can potentially coordinate their actions based on shared knowledge about uncertainty. We first assessed human ability to estimate the probability and the ambiguity (imprecision) of twenty-three probabilistic phrases in a coordination game in two different contexts, investment advice and medical advice. We then had GPT4 (OpenAI), a Large Language Model, complete the same tasks as the human participants. We found that the median human participant and GPT4 assigned probability estimates that were in good agreement (proportions of variance accounted for close to .90). GPT4's estimates of probability both in the investment and Medical contexts were as close or closer to that of the human participants as the human participants' estimates were to one another. Estimates of probability for both the human participants and GPT4 were little affected by context. In contrast, human and GPT4 estimates of ambiguity were not in such good agreement.