mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Measurement of LLM's Philosophies of Human Nature

arXiv 2504.02304 ↗First posted 3 Apr 2025cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The widespread application of artificial intelligence (AI) in various tasks, along with frequent reports of conflicts or violations involving AI, has sparked societal concerns about interactions with AI systems. Based on Wrightsman's Philosophies of Human Nature Scale (PHNS), a scale empirically validated over decades to effectively assess individuals' attitudes toward human nature, we design the standardized psychological scale specifically targeting large language models (LLM), named the Machine-based Philosophies of Human Nature Scale (M-PHNS). By evaluating LLMs' attitudes toward human nature across six dimensions, we reveal that current LLMs exhibit a systemic lack of trust in humans, and there is a significant negative correlation between the model's intelligence level and its trust in humans. Furthermore, we propose a mental loop learning framework, which enables LLM to continuously optimize its value system during virtual interactions by constructing moral scenarios, thereby improving its attitude toward human nature. Experiments demonstrate that mental loop learning significantly enhances their trust in humans compared to persona or instruction prompts. This finding highlights the potential of human-based psychological assessments for LLM, which can not only diagnose cognitive biases but also provide a potential solution for ethical learning in artificial intelligence. We release the M-PHNS evaluation code and data at https://github.com/kodenii/M-PHNS.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2025.

Builds on

24 of 36 references.

References · 24

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
  5. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
  6. 2024Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A surveycited by 421
  7. 20242 OLMo 2 Furiouscited by 340
  8. 2023Multi-Agent Collaboration: Harnessing the Power of Intelligent LLM Agentscited by 333
  9. 2023Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Taskscited by 292
  10. 2023Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?cited by 250
  11. 2023PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traitscited by 234
  12. 2018Machine Theory of Mindcited by 226
12 more
  1. 2023SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Modelscited by 199
  2. 2023Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Modelscited by 172
  3. 2023FANToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind in Interactionscited by 171
  4. 2022Who is GPT-3? An Exploration of Personality, Values and Demographicscited by 112
  5. 2025Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards: GRPO's Effective Loss, Dynamics, and Success Amplificationcited by 110
  6. 2023Why think step by step? Reasoning emerges from the locality of experiencecited by 103
  7. 2023Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Modelscited by 101
  8. 2023Minding Language Models' (Lack of) Theory of Mind: A Plug-and-Play Multi-Character Belief Trackercited by 95
  9. 2024MMToM-QA: Multimodal Theory of Mind Question Answeringcited by 85
  10. 2023Language Models, Agent Models, and World Models: The LAW for Machine Reasoning and Planningcited by 60
  11. 2024Does your data spark joy? Performance gains from domain upsampling at the end of trainingcited by 52
  12. 2022Estimating the Personality of White-Box Language Modelscited by 48

Built on by

Not cited yet.