Limits of ChatGPT's conversational pragmatics in a Turing test on ethics, commonsense, and cultural sensitivity

Wolfgang Wagner , George Gaskell , Eva Paraschou , Siqi Lyu , Maria Michali , Athena Vakali
{"title":"Limits of ChatGPT's conversational pragmatics in a Turing test on ethics, commonsense, and cultural sensitivity","authors":"Wolfgang Wagner ,&nbsp;George Gaskell ,&nbsp;Eva Paraschou ,&nbsp;Siqi Lyu ,&nbsp;Maria Michali ,&nbsp;Athena Vakali","doi":"10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Does ChatGPT deliver its explicit claim to be culturally sensitive and its implicit claim to be a friendly digital person when conversing with human users? These claims are investigated from the perspective of linguistic pragmatics, particularly Grice's cooperative principle in communication. Following the pattern of real-life communication, turn-taking conversations reveal limitations in the LLM's grasp of the entire contextual setting described in the prompt. The prompts included ethical issues, a hiking adventure, geographical orientation and body movement. For cultural sensitivity the prompts came from a Pakistani Muslim in English language, from a Hindu in English, and from a Chinese in Chinese language. The issues were deeply cultural involving feelings and emotions. Qualitative analysis of the conversation pragmatics showed that ChatGPT is often unable to conduct conversations according to the pragmatic principles of quantity, reliable quality, remaining in focus, and being clear in expression. We conclude that ChatGPT should be promoted as a machine and not a faux human and not be presented as a global LLM but be subdivided into culture-specific modules.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100324,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125000751","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Does ChatGPT deliver its explicit claim to be culturally sensitive and its implicit claim to be a friendly digital person when conversing with human users? These claims are investigated from the perspective of linguistic pragmatics, particularly Grice's cooperative principle in communication. Following the pattern of real-life communication, turn-taking conversations reveal limitations in the LLM's grasp of the entire contextual setting described in the prompt. The prompts included ethical issues, a hiking adventure, geographical orientation and body movement. For cultural sensitivity the prompts came from a Pakistani Muslim in English language, from a Hindu in English, and from a Chinese in Chinese language. The issues were deeply cultural involving feelings and emotions. Qualitative analysis of the conversation pragmatics showed that ChatGPT is often unable to conduct conversations according to the pragmatic principles of quantity, reliable quality, remaining in focus, and being clear in expression. We conclude that ChatGPT should be promoted as a machine and not a faux human and not be presented as a global LLM but be subdivided into culture-specific modules.
ChatGPT会话语用在伦理、常识和文化敏感性图灵测试中的局限性
ChatGPT在与人类用户交谈时,是否明确宣称自己具有文化敏感性,并含蓄地声称自己是一个友好的数字人?本文从语言语用学的角度,特别是格赖斯的交际合作原则对这些观点进行了研究。遵循现实生活中的交流模式,轮流对话揭示了LLM对提示中描述的整个上下文设置的把握的局限性。题目包括道德问题、徒步探险、地理方位和身体运动。出于文化敏感性考虑,这些提示分别来自英文的巴基斯坦穆斯林、英文的印度教徒和中文的中国人。这些问题是深层次的文化问题,涉及感情和情绪。对会话语用学的定性分析表明,ChatGPT往往无法按照数量、质量可靠、焦点集中、表达清晰的语用原则进行会话。我们得出的结论是,ChatGPT应该作为一台机器而不是一个人造的人来推广,也不应该作为一个全球性的法学硕士来呈现,而是应该细分为特定文化的模块。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信