IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v120y2023pe2316205120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The emergence of economic rationality of GPT

Author

Listed:
  • Yiting Chen

    (a Department of Economics , Lingnan University , Hong Kong , China HKG)

  • Tracy Xiao Liu

    (b Department of Economics , School of Economics and Management , National Center for Economic Research at Tsinghua University, Tsinghua University , Beijing 100084 , China)

  • You Shan

    (c Department of Economics , School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University , Beijing 100084 , China)

  • Songfa Zhong

    (e Department of Economics , National University of Singapore , Singapore 117570 , Singapore)

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) like GPT become increasingly prevalent, it is essential that we assess their capabilities beyond language processing. This paper examines the economic rationality of GPT by instructing it to make budgetary decisions in four domains: risk, time, social, and food preferences. We measure economic rationality by assessing the consistency of GPT’s decisions with utility maximization in classic revealed preference theory. We find that GPT’s decisions are largely rational in each domain and demonstrate higher rationality score than those of human subjects in a parallel experiment and in the literature. Moreover, the estimated preference parameters of GPT are slightly different from human subjects and exhibit a lower degree of heterogeneity. We also find that the rationality scores are robust to the degree of randomness and demographic settings such as age and gender but are sensitive to contexts based on the language frames of the choice situations. These results suggest the potential of LLMs to make good decisions and the need to further understand their capabilities, limitations, and underlying mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiting Chen & Tracy Xiao Liu & You Shan & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "The emergence of economic rationality of GPT," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120(51), pages 2316205120-, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:120:y:2023:p:e2316205120
    DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2316205120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2316205120
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1073/pnas.2316205120?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Federico Echenique & Taisuke Imai & Kota Saito, 2023. "Approximate Expected Utility Rationalization," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 1821-1864.
    2. John J. Horton, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Kosinski, Michal, 2023. "Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models," Research Papers 4086, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Alex Davies & Petar Veličković & Lars Buesing & Sam Blackwell & Daniel Zheng & Nenad Tomašev & Richard Tanburn & Peter Battaglia & Charles Blundell & András Juhász & Marc Lackenby & Geordie Williamson, 2021. "Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with AI," Nature, Nature, vol. 600(7887), pages 70-74, December.
    5. Kagel, John H, et al, 1975. "Experimental Studies of Consumer Demand Behavior Using Laboratory Animals," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 13(1), pages 22-38, March.
    6. Fisman, Raymond & Jakiela, Pamela & Kariv, Shachar, 2017. "Distributional preferences and political behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    8. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie R. Santos, 2006. "How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 517-537, June.
    9. John J. Horton, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," Papers 2301.07543, arXiv.org.
    10. Keshav Agrawal & Susan Athey & Ayush Kanodia & Emil Palikot, 2022. "Personalized Recommendations in EdTech: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial," Papers 2208.13940, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    11. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nunzio Lor`e & Babak Heydari, 2023. "Strategic Behavior of Large Language Models: Game Structure vs. Contextual Framing," Papers 2309.05898, arXiv.org.
    2. Jiafu An & Difang Huang & Chen Lin & Mingzhu Tai, 2024. "Measuring Gender and Racial Biases in Large Language Models," Papers 2403.15281, arXiv.org.
    3. Kirshner, Samuel N., 2024. "GPT and CLT: The impact of ChatGPT's level of abstraction on consumer recommendations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    4. Christoph Engel & Max R. P. Grossmann & Axel Ockenfels, 2023. "Integrating machine behavior into human subject experiments: A user-friendly toolkit and illustrations," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_01, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Bauer, Kevin & Liebich, Lena & Hinz, Oliver & Kosfeld, Michael, 2023. "Decoding GPT's hidden "rationality" of cooperation," SAFE Working Paper Series 401, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Evangelos Katsamakas, 2024. "Business models for the simulation hypothesis," Papers 2404.08991, arXiv.org.
    2. Allen, Roy & Dziewulski, Paweł & Rehbeck, John, 2022. "Making sense of monkey business: Re-examining tests of animal rationality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 220-228.
    3. Roy Allen & Paweł Dziewulski & John Rehbeck, 2024. "Revealed statistical consumer theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 77(3), pages 823-847, May.
    4. Gary Charness & Brian Jabarian & John List, 2023. "Generation Next: Experimentation with AI," Artefactual Field Experiments 00777, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Bauer, Kevin & Liebich, Lena & Hinz, Oliver & Kosfeld, Michael, 2023. "Decoding GPT's hidden "rationality" of cooperation," SAFE Working Paper Series 401, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    6. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    7. Cabeza Martínez, Begoña, 2023. "Social preferences, support for redistribution, and attitudes towards vulnerable groups," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Gauriot, Romain & Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2020. "Altruism or diminishing marginal utility?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 24-48.
    9. Kevin Leyton-Brown & Paul Milgrom & Neil Newman & Ilya Segal, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Market Design: Lessons Learned from Radio Spectrum Reallocation," NBER Chapters, in: New Directions in Market Design, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel, 2020. "Social preferences and political attitudes: An online experiment on a large heterogeneous sample," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Müller, Daniel, 2019. "The anatomy of distributional preferences with group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 785-807.
    13. Aleksander Rubinstein, 2013. "The theory of patronized goods in the optics of comparative methodology," International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, Center for International Scientific Research of VSO and VSPP, vol. 1(1), pages 4-32, December.
    14. Рубинштейн Александр Яковлевич, "undated". "Методологический Анализ Теории Опекаемых Благ: Научный Доклад [methodological analysis of the Theory of Patronized Goods. Research report]," Working papers a:pru175:ye:2014:1, Institute of Economics.
    15. Kirshner, Samuel N., 2024. "GPT and CLT: The impact of ChatGPT's level of abstraction on consumer recommendations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    16. Uttara Balakrishnan & Johannes Haushofer & Pamela Jakiela, 2020. "How soon is now? Evidence of present bias from convex time budget experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 294-321, June.
    17. Zengqing Wu & Run Peng & Xu Han & Shuyuan Zheng & Yixin Zhang & Chuan Xiao, 2023. "Smart Agent-Based Modeling: On the Use of Large Language Models in Computer Simulations," Papers 2311.06330, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    18. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    19. Joshua Lanier & John K. -H. Quah, 2024. "Goodness-of-fit and utility estimation: what's possible and what's not," Papers 2405.08464, arXiv.org.
    20. Fehr, Ernst & Epper, Thomas & Senn, Julien, 2022. "Other-Regarding Preferences and Redistributive Politics," IZA Discussion Papers 15088, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:120:y:2023:p:e2316205120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.