Behind the Screen: Investigating ChatGPT's Dark Personality Traits and Conspiracy Beliefs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
ChatGPT is notorious for its intransparent behavior. This paper tries to shed light on this, providing an in-depth analysis of the dark personality traits and conspiracy beliefs of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Different psychological tests and questionnaires were employed, including the Dark Factor Test, the Mach-IV Scale, the Generic Conspiracy Belief Scale, and the Conspiracy Mentality Scale. The responses were analyzed computing average scores, standard deviations, and significance tests to investigate differences between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. For traits that have shown to be interdependent in human studies, correlations were considered. Additionally, system roles corresponding to groups that have shown distinct answering behavior in the corresponding questionnaires were applied to examine the models' ability to reflect characteristics associated with these roles in their responses. Dark personality traits and conspiracy beliefs were not particularly pronounced in either model with little differences between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. However, GPT-4 showed a pronounced tendency to believe in information withholding. This is particularly intriguing given that GPT-4 is trained on a significantly larger dataset than GPT-3.5. Apparently, in this case an increased data exposure correlates with a greater belief in the control of information. An assignment of extreme political affiliations increased the belief in conspiracy theories. Test sequencing affected the models' responses and the observed correlations, indicating a form of contextual memory.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2024.
Builds on
17 of 65 references.
References · 17
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,537
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
- 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,227
- 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 505
- 2023Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?cited by 486
- 2023Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Modelscited by 356
- 2023A Comprehensive Capability Analysis of GPT-3 and GPT-3.5 Series Modelscited by 244
- 2021Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practicescited by 206
- 2023The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientationcited by 183
5 more
- 2023Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 144
- 2023Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Modelscited by 102
- 2023A Complete Survey on Generative AI (AIGC): Is ChatGPT from GPT-4 to GPT-5 All You Need?cited by 84
- 2023The Self-Perception and Political Biases of ChatGPTcited by 66
- 2023ChatGPT: Applications, Opportunities, and Threatscited by 28
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
2 papers.