0.6CLFeb 27
From Tokens To Agents: A Researcher's Guide To Understanding Large Language ModelsDaniele Barolo
Researchers face a critical choice: how to use -- or not use -- large language models in their work. Using them well requires understanding the mechanisms that shape what LLMs can and cannot do. This chapter makes LLMs comprehensible without requiring technical expertise, breaking down six essential components: pre-training data, tokenization and embeddings, transformer architecture, probabilistic generation, alignment, and agentic capabilities. Each component is analyzed through both technical foundations and research implications, identifying specific affordances and limitations. Rather than prescriptive guidance, the chapter develops a framework for reasoning critically about whether and how LLMs fit specific research needs, finally illustrated through an extended case study on simulating social media dynamics with LLM-based agents.
14.4CLJun 10
LLMs Can Better Capture Human Judgments--With the Right PromptsDanica Dillion, Chen Cecilia Liu, Baihui Wang et al.
Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.