# Reasoning and the Trusting Behavior of DeepSeek and GPT: An Experiment Revealing Hidden Fault Lines in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12825 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12825/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 13 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.00537/) (2019)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Assessing Cross-Cultural Alignment between ChatGPT and Human Societies: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17466/) (2023)
- [Thinking Fast and Slow in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.05206/) (2022)
- [GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12348/) (2024)
- [Can Large Language Models Serve as Rational Players in Game Theory? A Systematic Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.05488/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Model Agents Simulate Human Trust Behavior?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04559/) (2024)
- [The Challenge of Using LLMs to Simulate Human Behavior: A Causal Inference Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.15524/) (2023)
- [Top Leaderboard Ranking = Top Coding Proficiency, Always? EvoEval: Evolving Coding Benchmarks via LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19114/) (2024)
- [Take Caution in Using LLMs as Human Surrogates: Scylla Ex Machina](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.19599/) (2024)
- [Psychological Metrics for Dialog System Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14757/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Towards Reasoning Era: A Survey of Long Chain-of-Thought for Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.09567/) (2025)
- [Does Reasoning Help LLM Agents Play Dungeons and Dragons? A Prompt Engineering Experiment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18112/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When encountering increasingly frequent performance improvements or cost reductions from a new large language model (LLM), developers of applications leveraging LLMs must decide whether to take advantage of these improvements or stay with older tried-and-tested models. Low perceived switching frictions can lead to choices that do not consider more subtle behavior changes that the transition may induce. Our experiments use a popular game-theoretic behavioral economics model of trust to show stark differences in the trusting behavior of OpenAI's and DeepSeek's models. We highlight a collapse in the economic trust behavior of the o1-mini and o3-mini models as they reconcile profit-maximizing and risk-seeking with future returns from trust, and contrast it with DeepSeek's more sophisticated and profitable trusting behavior that stems from an ability to incorporate deeper concepts like forward planning and theory-of-mind. As LLMs form the basis for high-stakes commercial systems, our results highlight the perils of relying on LLM performance benchmarks that are too narrowly defined and suggest that careful analysis of their hidden fault lines should be part of any organization's AI strategy.