Artificial intelligences and human scientists exhibit complementary strengths in theory building
Abstract
We investigate the effectiveness of artificial intelligences (AI)-specifically large language models (LLMs)-relative to human scientists at high-level cognitive tasks in social science such as theory formulation, predictions of novel empirical results, and theory revision in response to new evidence. The research domain was academic discourse regarding gender and race inequality. Our findings, comparing 25 LLMs with 13 senior researchers and 60 doctoral scholars, reveal that the AIs outperformed most humans individually on most of the present tasks, while human theories were more diverse and exhibited greater gains in predictive accuracy from aggregation. AI-generated theories were more extensively elaborated, involving additional theoretical paths and latent variables, and were rated as higher quality than human theories by independent raters blinded to source. However, this theoretical complexity was in part ornamental, in that it was not associated with more accurate predictions about empirical patterns in data; in contrast, human scientists achieved greater predictive efficiency with simpler theories. The AIs were significantly more likely than human scientists to revise their theories to incorporate new evidence; human scientists updated their beliefs in a selective way that is sensitive to prior prediction errors. We speculate that the superior processing capacity of artificial intelligences makes them especially well-suited to tasks requiring grappling with complexity, but that the greater diversity of human ideas is essential to wise crowds and collective creativity.
