# Large Language Models are biased to overestimate profoundness

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.14422 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14422/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Oct 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11416/) (2022)
- [Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.12712/) (2023)
- [Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.07705/) (2022)
- [Multimodal Few-Shot Learning with Frozen Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.13884/) (2021)
- [What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.06316/) (2019)
- [Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14576/) (2022)
- [Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.01368/) (2016)
- [What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.13528/) (2019)
- [Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08399/) (2023)
- [Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.07051/) (2022)
- [Open Sesame: Getting Inside BERT's Linguistic Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.01698/) (2019)
- [A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.06801/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [ViLBench: A Suite for Vision-Language Process Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20271/) (2025)
- [CausalGraph2LLM: Evaluating LLMs for Causal Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15939/) (2024)
- [Evaluating and Improving Robustness in Large Language Models: A Survey and Future Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11111/) (2025)
- [Is the Pope Catholic? Yes, the Pope is Catholic. Generative Evaluation of Non-Literal Intent Resolution in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.08760/) (2024)
- [Desert Camels and Oil Sheikhs: Arab-Centric Red Teaming of Frontier LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.24049/) (2024)
- [Understanding LLM Evaluator Behavior: A Structured Multi-Evaluator Framework for Merchant Risk Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05110/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advancements in natural language processing by large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, have been suggested to approach Artificial General Intelligence. And yet, it is still under dispute whether LLMs possess similar reasoning abilities to humans. This study evaluates GPT-4 and various other LLMs in judging the profoundness of mundane, motivational, and pseudo-profound statements. We found a significant statement-to-statement correlation between the LLMs and humans, irrespective of the type of statements and the prompting technique used. However, LLMs systematically overestimate the profoundness of nonsensical statements, with the exception of Tk-instruct, which uniquely underestimates the profoundness of statements. Only few-shot learning prompts, as opposed to chain-of-thought prompting, draw LLMs ratings closer to humans. Furthermore, this work provides insights into the potential biases induced by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), inducing an increase in the bias to overestimate the profoundness of statements.