https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18311 There’s a massive trend right now where companies are trying to replace real human feedback with LLM-driven “synthetic users.” The idea sounds great on paper - why would you spend money and time recruiting real people to test products, pick design choices, or evaluate options when you can just prompt? They tested LLMs across 28 real-world studies spanning 78 choice tasks to see if their selections matched thousands of actual human participants. The result? The LLMs matched the human majority only 53% of the time . Since most tasks were a choice between two options, that’s pretty much same as flipping a coin. Even worse for the “simulation” argument: adding detailed personas and chain-of-thought reasoning yielded practically no improvement . It actually made the semantic similarity to real human justifications worse because the model’s “reasoning” just homogenized the outputs and failed to capture actual lived experiences. It looks like LLMs are just trained to replicate what we like about their outputs rather than making them capable of predicting human preferences. Is it time to admit that LLM simulation has hit a hard wall when it comes to replicating human choice? submitted by /u/Complete_Answer
Originally posted by u/Complete_Answer on r/ArtificialInteligence