Beauty is in the AI of the beholder: MLLMs systematically overrate facial attractiveness

Beauty assessments from Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly popular amongst users, companies, and aestheticians. This raises the question of whether these AI models can accurately reflect human judgments of attractiveness. In a pre- registered exploratory study, we compared the attractiveness ratings of 2,513 human participants to four widely used commercial AI models: Claude, Gemini, GPT, and Grok. Results showed that MLLMs systematically rate faces more favourably and within a narrower range than humans and, at the time of study, do not reproduce human ratings in absolute terms. However, MLLMs exhibit strong correlations with human attractiveness judgments, accurately tracking the rank-ordering of faces. MLLMs may judge faces by different cues than humans; only face age was a predictor of facial attractiveness in both humans and MLLMs, with inconsistent patterns across models for ethnicity and gender. AI models strongly agree with one another, except for Grok, which also showed the lowest agreement with humans. Our findings suggest that while they may be able to approximate rank-orderings of human attractiveness, current off-the-shelf commercial MLLMs systematically overrate the beauty of human faces.

Frontier vision-language models have overtaken young adults at detecting AI-generated portraits -- but not their calibration

AI image generators now create face portraits that are hard to tell from real photographs. Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly proposed to flag such images. We benchmarked 19 VLMs on the same 198 face portraits -- real photographs and identity-matched ChatGPT-4o and Imagen 3 versions -- under the same task as our earlier study of 1,667 adults (85% correct overall; accuracy fell steeply with age). The June-2026 cohort of 14 models only matched adults in their 20s-30s. Four weeks later the ceiling broke. Among five July-2026 releases under the identical protocol, gpt-5.6-sol reached 92.8% balanced accuracy (five-draw mean 92.1%), clearly above adults in their 20s (88.5%), and claude-fable-5 detected every AI image while averaging 91.9%. Model sensitivity now exceeds young adults decisively (d' up to 3.4 versus ~ 2.4). What has not been overtaken is human calibration. Model criteria spread from c = -1.10 to +1.45 while humans sit near zero at every age; both new leaders are biased (+0.44, -0.97), and only a few mid-ranked models approach the human balance. Changing the labelled examples still flipped about one answer in four. The best machines now out-see young adults here, without matching the human balance between suspicion and trust.

Matched Outcomes, Divergent Gaze: How Foveated MLLMs Search Compared to Humans

Human visual search is serial: the fovea must land on a candidate to confirm it, and those landings form a scanpath. Whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs), given the same foveated input, search as humans do bears on their use as models of human vision and on attention-alignment scores. We compare three general-purpose MLLMs with human eye-movement scanpaths on goal-directed search (COCO-Search18), driving each model fixation by fixation through an identical, human-matched foveated view and assessing it along three axes: the decision of target presence, the efficiency of reaching the target, and the gaze process itself. The axes dissociate. On the decision and on target acquisition the models match or exceed humans, detecting present targets near ceiling and reaching them on the first saccade more often than people do. The gaze process is not human. Under the human-matched condition, all three share one signature: low-entropy, large-amplitude, self-consistent scanpaths that agree with themselves far more closely than two humans agree with each other. That is consistent with a single-pass, non-serial architecture rather than a limit of acuity. Matched retinal input reproduces where humans look but not how the looking unfolds in time, and no degradation regime recovers human-like search at human-like success. The gap sits on a process axis that answer-alignment and saliency metrics do not measure. Because they miss it, such metrics cannot certify human-like vision, and zero-shot models suit outcome and spatial questions but not temporal, process-level ones.

The Judgment-Consequence Gap: LLM Moral Reasoning in Healthcare Decisions

As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their moral reasoning becomes essential. Decisions about scarce medical resources often hinge on judgments of responsibility, particularly when patients' own actions contribute to illness. We investigate how LLMs reason about responsibility and its consequences, tracing their judgments across successive levels, from the behavior, to the resulting illness, to the denial of care. We evaluate a wide range of LLMs, spanning different model families and capability levels, on various clinical vignettes adapted from prior studies. Our results identify a judgment-consequence gap: LLMs largely agree with humans that patients bear responsibility for health-harming behaviors, yet overwhelmingly refuse to let that judgment influence how they allocate scarce resources. Specifically, LLMs default to random allocation, whereas humans consistently favor the less-culpable patient. Compared to humans, LLMs also place greater emphasis on access to information, reducing responsibility judgments when health-risk knowledge is unavailable. These findings reveal that LLMs apply a systematically different moral framework than humans when responsibility and resource scarcity intersect, surprisingly often amplifying normative disagreement with humans as reasoning capability increases.

FriendBench: Benchmarking Dyadic Familiarity Inference in Humans and Multimodal Large Language Models

Reading a social situation often depends on behavior, not words alone. We introduce FriendBench, a benchmark for inferring whether two people are already familiar or are meeting as strangers, from a 20-second clip of a dyadic ice-breaker conversation. Every pair answers the same type of prompt, so only the manner of interaction can reveal the answer. Across text, audio, and video, we compare 26 models from seven companies against matched human panels over 96 balanced dyads. The best model and the human crowd are statistically indistinguishable on accuracy in every modality, but reach it differently: humans stay balanced across the two answers, while the strongest models lean toward "stranger"---a difference in effective prior, not discrimination. Richer channels help both unequally, and only humans gain from visible behavior on top of speech. We release the stimuli, human ratings, and model predictions.

Using Large Language Models for Idea Generation in Innovation

This research evaluates the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) in generating new product ideas. To do so, we compare three pools of ideas for new products targeted toward college students and priced at 50 dollars or less. The first pool of ideas was created by university students in a product design course before the availability of LLMs. The second and third pools of ideas were generated by GPT-4 from OpenAI using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, respectively. We evaluated idea quality using standard market research techniques to predict average purchase intent probability. We used text mining to assess idea similarity and human raters to evaluate idea novelty. We find that AI-generated ideas outperform human-generated ideas in terms of average purchase intent, with few-shot prompting yielding slightly higher intent than zero-shot prompting. However, AI-generated ideas are perceived as less novel and exhibit higher pairwise similarity, particularly with few-shot prompting, indicating a less diverse solution landscape. When focusing on the quality of the best ideas rather than the average ideas, we find that AI-generated ideas are seven times more likely to rank among the top 10 percent of ideas, demonstrating a significant advantage over human-generated ideas. We propose that this seven-to-one advantage is a conservative estimate because it does not account for the greater productivity of AI. Our findings suggest that despite some drawbacks, AI creativity presents a substantial benefit in generating high-quality ideas for new product development.

AI's Capability in Assisting Scientific Research in Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology II: Project Planning and Proposal Evaluation

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist scientific project planning and proposal evaluation. One-page project plans were independently generated for eight expert-conceived research projects in physics, astrophysics, and cosmology by human researchers and three contemporary LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, and DeepSeek; mid-2025 models, used with their default tool access). The resulting 32 proposals were blindly evaluated by four human reviewers and two newer frontier LLMs (Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT Pro 5.5) using a four-aspect evaluation rubric. Reviewers were also asked to identify whether each proposal was written by a human or an AI. Human reviewers rated human- and AI-written proposals similarly overall, whereas both AI reviewers scored AI-written proposals about one point higher (on a five-point scale) than human-written proposals. Human reviewers correctly identified human- and AI-written proposals 72% and 79% of the time, respectively, while both AI reviewers correctly classified all 32 proposals (100%). These results suggest that current LLMs can produce project plans comparable to human-written ones in the eyes of human reviewers, but that AI reviewers show a systematic preference for AI-generated proposals. Our results suggest caution when deploying LLMs widely in proposal preparation and evaluation.

AI vs Human Expert Reasoning: Assessing Agreements in Building Typology Predictions based on Street View Imagery

This research investigates the potential of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to infer building typologies: Construction, Current Use, and Storeys from Google Street View (GSV) images. Predictions generated by VLMs are compared with inference by human experts (civil engineers and architects) as a source of manually labelled ground-truth data. We evaluate several state-of-the-art VLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash. By applying different scaling strategies and prompting techniques, we found that Chain-of-Thought prompts provide an overall more stable model performance. We also investigate the reasoning behind VLMs' building-typology predictions by examining the probabilities of keywords appearing in AI explanations. This enabled us to analyse patterns in these reasonings and identify key themes driving both agreements and disagreements between VLM and expert labels. We find that AI tends to focus on visual indicators, whereas human experts place greater emphasis on broader contextual cues and domain knowledge, in addition to visual cues. Overall, VLM can approximate experts' capability in building-typology classification at scale, with an average accuracy of approximately 70%. The study demonstrates the VLM's potential for AI automation in tasks that require pattern recognition and object identification in an urban context. AI have the potential to serve as complementary and collaborative tools for urban analysis, leveraging their strengths in understanding visual patterns. This study contributes to the exploration of the efficiency and scalability of AI visual prediction and provides insights into the reasoning processes that could support automation processes in urban analysis and prediction.

Plausible but Not Valid: A Psychometric Audit of LLMs as Synthetic Survey Respondents

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic survey respondents, but existing evaluations ask whether answers look plausible at the individual level. We argue the right question is psychometric: do LLMs preserve the joint distribution, latent structure, reliability, mediation pathways, and demographic effects of real human survey data? We introduce a Lithuanian organisational-psychology dataset (n=263 employees; Dunham Attitudes Toward Change, UWES-17, Koopmans IWPQ; 68 items, 12 subscales) and condition a 37-model lineup spanning OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and twelve open-weight families on real respondent profiles under a five-level persona-disclosure ladder, presentation and reasoning-effort ablations, counterfactual demographic swaps (gender, role, education), a cross-language check, and a verbatim-recall memorization probe. The resulting Psychometric Similarity Score (PSS) is anchored against five non-LLM statistical baselines and a held-out human-vs-human ceiling, with respondent-bootstrap confidence intervals and an item-permutation null for Tucker's phi. LLMs reproduce the qualitative direction of human psychometric relationships, but a Gaussian-copula baseline beats every LLM on the sample-driven PSS components; the LLM "crowd" is more similar to itself (mean inter-LLM PSS 0.73) than to humans; and memorization does not drive the leaderboard (recall-PSS rank correlation 0.00). Counterfactual swaps reveal education-driven effects (mean |d|=0.56) that dwarf gender (0.12) and role (0.18); Tucker's phi on UWES falls inside the permutation null for 8 of 37 models. Downstream, every LLM shows a strong acquiescence shift (+0.84 SD), synthetic-trained regressors lose predictive validity on held-out humans (mean R^2 -0.18 vs 0.28), and models fabricate indirect effects on 3 of 10 placebo mediation paths. LLM samples are not a drop-in replacement for human survey data.

AI systems out-persuade expert humans

Many societal decisions are settled by contests of persuasion. Conversational AI is a powerful new entrant in these contests, but whether it can out-persuade skilled and highly incentivized humans has remained unclear. Here, in a series of four preregistered experiments (n = 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people), we pitted AI systems against a range of human persuaders, including laypeople, winners of a separately preregistered four-round online persuasion tournament, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters. We found that AI systems were reliably more persuasive than expert humans, even when expert humans chose their issues, researched in advance, underwent hours of live, structured practice, and were incentivized with £1,000 cash bonuses. In a follow-up study, AI's advantage persisted after experts received a coaching tool that let them practice against the AI that beat them, review their performance history, and see what AI would have said at key moments. We found converging evidence that AI's advantage stemmed from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information: after coaching, expert humans could tie an AI constrained to respond at human speeds and with human-length messages. In a final study, we show that AI's advantage extends to consequential real-world behavior: AI was nearly 3x more effective than professional canvassers from a UK fundraising firm at raising real-money donations to Save the Children. Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in conversation, with significant implications for political communication.

Flaws in the LLM Automation Narrative

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as performing at the level of human experts on knowledge economy tasks. These claims are primarily based on how LLMs perform on benchmarking tasks that measure average performance across standardized datasets. Primary limitations of many benchmarking tasks are that they often measure performance based on content directly included in LLM training data, and they frequently do not assess the reliability of LLM performance or the magnitude of LLM errors. However, in high stakes contexts, these qualities are critically important. Through a novel LLM benchmarking task that requires writing computer code to complete a data analysis task, we compare the performance of a frontier LLM against submissions from human experts and explicitly measure the variance of responses and the magnitude of errors. Our study reveals that the human experts perform better on average on a range of metrics and demonstrate less variability in performance. Our results provide evidence that LLMs do not consistently perform at the level of human experts and demonstrate the importance of measuring variance and assessing error magnitude in LLM benchmark evaluations.

Not Yet: Humans Outperform LLMs in a Colonel Blotto Tournament

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has spurred economists to study how humans and LLMs behave in strategic settings. We organized a series of round-robin tournaments in the Colonel Blotto game. This game attracts game theorists' attention due to high-dimensional action space and the absence of pure strategy Nash equilibria. In the first tournament, more than 200 human participants competed against one another. In the second tournament, several popular LLMs were invited to submit strategies. In the third tournament, we matched the number of LLM strategies to the number submitted by humans. We find that humans more often employ better-calibrated intermediate-level allocation heuristics and outperform the simpler, more stereotyped strategies submitted by LLMs. Strategic sophistication is key to success if and only if the necessary level of reasoning depth is reached, while lower and higher levels of reasoning offer no clear advantage over the primitive strategies. Among humans, field of study weakly predicts success: participants with STEM backgrounds perform better in the first tournament. Surprisingly, humans almost do not adjust their strategies across tournaments with different sets of opponents. This result suggests that humans base their choices primarily on the game's rules rather than on the identity of their opponents, treating LLMs much like human competitors.

Cooperate to Compete: Strategic Coordination in Multi-Agent Conquest

Language Model (LM)-based agents remain largely untested in mixed-motive settings where agents must leverage short-term cooperation for long-term competitive goals (e.g., multi-party politics). We introduce Cooperate to Compete (C2C), a multi-agent environment where players can engage in private negotiations while competing to be the first to achieve their secret objective. Players have asymmetric objectives and negotiations are non-binding, allowing alliances to form and break as players' short-term interests align and diverge. We run AI only games and conduct a user study pitting human players against AI opponents. We identify significant differences between human and AI negotiation behaviors, finding that humans favor lower-complexity deals and are significantly less reliable partners compared to LM-based agents. We also find that humans are more aggressive negotiators, accepting deals without a counteroffer only 56.3% of the time compared to 67.6% for LM-based agents. Through targeted prompting inspired by these findings, we modify agents' negotiation behavior and improve win rates from 22.2% to 32.7%. We run over 1,100 games with over 16,000 private conversations totaling 15.2 million tokens and over 150,000 player actions. Our results establish C2C as a testbed for studying and building LM-based agents that can navigate the sophisticated coordination required for real-world deployments. The game, code, and dataset may be found at https://negotiationgame.io/c2c.