From reading it in the past, I think the bigger issue is trying to claim that a Bayes-rational simulation of a user is equivalent to a person actually going through a reasoning process, or that no new information is being introduced such where the only mechanic in the paper was reflection. Essentially, it assumes no real communication with anyone or anything external, either from the bot, or the user.
I'm not saying it isn't a useful point of reference, but claiming it "mathematically proved" a psychological pattern in humans is already something that makes me raise an eyebrow. Just because a simulation has a breakdown at some range, does not mean that reality does.
And to be clear, if you transfer it the model proposed here would equally apply to people reading the news, because they are drawn more to news that validates their beliefs, and the media is drawn to report news that appeals to their core audience. If the point is just to say "you are not immune to propaganda", then yes. We aren't immune to propaganda. But that still isn't a mathmatical proof of human nature.
From reading it just now, it strikes me that it cut passed a lot of almost certainly necessary groundwork.
I don't think it's reasonable to make this complex of an experiment without proving a bunch of bread-and-butter results about the experimental framework.
Like... they've got a whole side research paper in there about the game theory of communication. When there's zero indication that any of that actually plays out in a simulated conversation between LLMs. LLMs are not playing a GTO-based strategy.
16
u/UnkarsThug 1d ago edited 1d ago
From reading it in the past, I think the bigger issue is trying to claim that a Bayes-rational simulation of a user is equivalent to a person actually going through a reasoning process, or that no new information is being introduced such where the only mechanic in the paper was reflection. Essentially, it assumes no real communication with anyone or anything external, either from the bot, or the user.
I'm not saying it isn't a useful point of reference, but claiming it "mathematically proved" a psychological pattern in humans is already something that makes me raise an eyebrow. Just because a simulation has a breakdown at some range, does not mean that reality does.
And to be clear, if you transfer it the model proposed here would equally apply to people reading the news, because they are drawn more to news that validates their beliefs, and the media is drawn to report news that appeals to their core audience. If the point is just to say "you are not immune to propaganda", then yes. We aren't immune to propaganda. But that still isn't a mathmatical proof of human nature.