 |
|
|
|||||
Theres bad news for those using digital surveys to try to understand peoples online behavior: We may no longer be able to determine whether a human is responding to them or not, a recent study has shownand there seems to be no way around this problem. This means that all online canvassing could be vulnerable to misrepresenting people’s true opinions. This could have repercussions for anything that falls under the category of information warfare, from polling results, to misinformation, to fraud. Non-human survey respondents, in aggregate, could impact anything from flavors and pricing for a pack of gum, to something more damaging, such as whether or not someone could get government benefitsand what those should be. The problem here is twofold: 1) humans not being able to tell the difference between human and bot responses, and 2) in instances where automation is regulating action based on these responses, there would be no way to use such polling and safeguard against potentially dangerous problems as a result of this indistinguishability. The study by Dartmouths Sean J. Westwood in the PNAS journal of the National Academy of Sciences, titled The potential existential threat of large language models to online survey research, claims to show how we can no longer trust that, in survey research, we can no longer simply assume that a coherent response is a human response. Westwood created an autonomous agent capable of producing high-quality survey responses that demonstrate reasoning and coherence expected of human responses. To do this, Westwood designed a model-agnostic system designed for general-purpose reasoning, that focuses on a two layer architecture: One that acts as an interface to the survey platform and can deal with multiple types of queries while extracting relevant content, and anothercore layer that uses a reasoning engine (like an LLM). When a survey is conducted, Westwoods software loads a demographic persona that can store some recall of prior answers and then process questions to provide a contextually appropriate response as an answer. Once the reasoning engine decides on an answer, the interface in the first layer outputs a mimicked human response. The system is also designed to accommodate tools for bypassing antibot measures like reCAPTCHA. Westwoods system has an objective that isnt to perfectly replicate population distributions in aggregatebut to produce individual survey completions [that] would be seen as reasonable by a reasonable researcher. Westwoods results suggest that digital surveys may or may not be a true reflection of peoples opinions. There is just as likely a chance that surveys could, instead, be describing what an LLM assumes is human behavior. Furthermore, humans or AI making decisions based on those results could be relying on the opinions of simulated humans. Personas Creating synthetic people is not a new concept. Novels, visual media, plays, and advertisers use all sorts of creative ideas to portray various people in order to tell their stories. In design, the idea of Personas have been used for decades in marketing and User Interface design as a cost-cutting and timesaving trend. Personas are fictional composites of people and are represented by categories like Soccer Mom, Joe Six-pack, Technophobe Grandmother, or Business Executive. Besides being steeped in bias, Personas are projections of what the people creating them think these people would be and what the groups they might belong to represent. Personas are a hidden problem in design and marketing, precisely because they are composites drawn from real or imaginary people, rather than actual people — the values ascribed to them are constructed by other peoples interpretations. When relying upon Personas instead of people, its impossible to divine the true context of how a product or service is actually being used, as the personas are projected upon by the creator, and are not real people in real situations. Thus, the problems with using Personas to design products and services often arent identified until well after such products or services come to market and fail, or cause other unforeseen issues. This could be worse when these human-generated Personas are replaced with AI/LLM ChatBot personas with all the biases that these entailincluding slop influences or hallucinations that could make their responses even more odd or potentially even psychotic. Quant versus qual Part of the larger problem of not understanding peoples needs with surveys started when research shifted to statistical data collection based on computation, also known as quantitative methods, rather than contextual queries based on conversations and social relationships with others, or qualitative methods. As Big Data came online, people began to use quantitative methods such as online surveys, A/B testing, and other techniques to understand customer/user behavior. Because machines could quickly compile results, quantitative research seems to have become an industry standard for understanding people. It is not easy to automate qualitative methods, and replacing them with quantitative methods can forfeit important context. Since almost a generation has gone by with the world focused on computational counting, its easy to forget about the qualitative data methodsfound in social sciences such as Anthropologythat use contextual inquiry interviews with real people to understand why people do what they do, rather than trying to infer this from numerical responses. Qualitative research can give context to the quantitative data and methods that rely upon machines to divine meaning. They can also work outside of big data methods, and are grounded in relationships with actual people, which provides accountability to their beliefs and opinions. The process of talking with real people first contextualizes that content, leading to better outcomes. Qualitative methods can be quantified and counted, but quantitative methods cannot yet easily be made to be truly broadly contextual. One difference between using qualitative and quantitative methods has to do with transparency and understanding the validity of peoples responses. With older human-made Personas, there are obvious assumptions and gapsits crude puppetry and projection. But when people become manufactured by Chatbot/LLMs that utilize a corpus of knowledge mined from massive volumes of data, there can be fewer ways to separate fact from fiction. With chatbots and LLMs, the artificial entity is both the creator of the person, potentially the responder to te person, and either the interpreter of that fake chatbot persons responses, or being interpreted by an LLM. Thats where it can get dangerous, especially when the results of this type of slop tainted research are used for things like political polling or policing. Westwoods research has shown that: Rather than relying on brittle, question-specific rules, synthetic respondents maintain a consistent persona by conditioning answers on an initial demographic profile and a dynamic memory of previous responses. This allows it to answer disparate questions in an internally coherent manner,generating plausible, human-like patterns It can mimic context, but not create it. Back to the basics When GenAI is moving towards conducting the surveys, acting as respondents, and interpreting the surveys, will we be able to tell the difference between it and real people? A completely automated survey loop seems fictional, until we see how many people are already using Chatbots/LLMs to automate parts of the survey process even now. Someone might generate a persona, then use that to answer surveys that AI has designed, that someone else will then use a Chatbot to access AI to interpret results. Making a complete loop could be terrible: someone may then use AI to turn the Chatbot created, Chatbot answered, and AI interpreted survey responses into something that impacts real people who have real needs in the real world, but instead has been designed for fake people with fake needs in a fake world. Qualitative research is one path forward. It enables us to get to know real people, validate their replies, and refine context through methods that explore each answer for more depth. This type of work AI cannot yet do as LLMs currently base answers on statistical word matching, which is unrefined. Bots that replicate human answers will mimic a type of simulated human answer, but to know what real people think, and what things mean to them, companies may have to go back to hiring anthropologists, who are trained to use qualitative methods to connect with real people. Now that AI can falsely replicate human responses to quantitative surveys, those who believe that both quantitative methods and AI are the answers to conducting accurate research, are about to learn a hard lesson that will unfortunately, impact all of us.
Category:
E-Commerce
Many traitslike impulsivity, hyperfocus, and nonlinear thinkingthat get pathologized in school or corporate environments are the same ones that create natural entrepreneurs.
Category:
E-Commerce
The irony of modern work life hits you somewhere between your third consecutive hybrid meeting and the moment you realize you’ve been holding your breath for the past hour. We’ve engineered every process for maximum output, yet reports consistently show that workplace burnout is affecting us more than ever. As someone who followed the straight-A path from childhoodchasing perfect grades, moving from one goalpost to another through MBA to big tech product executiveI’ve witnessed this optimization obsession firsthand while shaping experiences for over half a billion users. But what if the solution isn’t another wellness program or time management technique? What if it’s something far simpler, and more subversive? What if the solution is putting aside your work and engaging in a little play? Research from Johns Hopkins University’s International Arts + Mind Lab, detailed in the 2023 bestseller Your Brain on Art by Susan Magsamen and Ivy Ross, shows that engaging in art reduces the stress hormone cortisol, no matter your skill level, with some benefits appearing in as little as 20 minutes. A 2025 study of nearly 2,500 people across five countries found that creativity can be reliably predicted by how often the brain switches between its default mode network (active during mind-wandering) and its executive control network (which handles focused attention and cognitive control). These brief creative interludes enhance productivity by allowing different brain networks to make new connections. Ive found that weaving micro-creativity practices into my days has increased my daily joy, aliveness, and overall wellbeing. At work, these creative breaks help me shake off the energy from difficult meetings, discover fresh perspectives when I’m stuck on problems, and connect more meaningfully with teammates who join me in these playful moments. Here are a few practices I love that you can use now to sneak a little play into your workday. 1. Become a Workplace Tea Alchemist Turn your coffee break into a micro-adventure by experimenting with tea combinations. Mix Earl Grey with chamomile, or green tea with cinnamon. Research the origins of different blendsdid you know Bigelow started as a small family business in 1945? If you’re more of a coffee drinker, create your own flavor experimentsadd a dash of cardamom or vanilla extract, or challenge yourself to draw a heart in your foam. (Wonky shapes count as art too!) This curiosity-driven exploration activates what psychologists call openness to experience, which correlates with better conflict resolution abilities and cognitive flexibility. 2. Replace To-Do Lists with ‘To-Doodle’ Lists Instead of writing “Review Q3 budget” in stark text, sketch it. Draw a treasure chest for budget review, a mountain for the challenging client presentation, or abstract shapes that represent your energy around each task. This isn’t about artistic skill; it’s about engaging the right brain’s pattern recognition while planning left-brain tasks. 3. Invite Random Hallway Interactions Ask one unexpected question to someone you see regularly but rarely talk to deeply, like “If you could teleport anywhere right now for lunch, where would you go?” or “If colors had personalities, which one would be your best friend?” The security guard who greets you each morning might have fascinating insights about the most interesting characters in the building. One such conversation led me to discover that Dolly Parton finds creative inspiration in graveyards, where she walks among headstones, finding sparks for her next song! 4. Open Team Huddles With ‘What I’m Saying No To’ Bingo Start each team huddle by sharing one thing you’re actively choosing not to do this week, but make it a game. Create a bingo card with common “no” categories like “unnecessary meeting,” “weekend work,” “social obligation,” and see who gets bingo first as team members share their weekly boundaries. This ritual normalizes boundary-setting, reveals hidden priorities, and creates psychological permission for intentional choices about time and energy. 5. Become a Workplace Note Fairy Write tiny, anonymous notes of appreciation and leave them where colleagues will find them: “Thank you for always restocking the coffee!” Your enthusiasm in meetings is contagious!” “Someone here gives the best hallway wavesthank you!” The act of crafting these small surprises shifts your brain from problem-focused thinking to wonder. One teammate told me that leaving weekly mystery notes became her favorite stress-relief ritual! 6. Go on Office Color Hunts Set a timer for three minutes and hunt for a specific color throughout your workspace. How many shades of yellow exist in your office? This micro-adventure forces you to notice your environment with fresh eyes and activates “attention restoration,” the mental reset that comes from shifting from directed attention to fascination. The beauty of these three-minute playful acts lies in their accessibility. Unlike meditation apps or wellness programs, they don’t require special equipment or cozy conditions. They work precisely because they fit into the existing structure of your day. More importantly, they address what organizational psychologist Dr. Christina Maslach identifies as the core drivers of burnout: lack of control, insufficient rewards, and values mismatch. These micro-creative acts restore a sense of agency, provide immediate intrinsic rewards, and reconnect you with the playful, curious aspects of yourself that often get buried under performative environments. The goal isn’t to become more creative in order to be more productive. It’s to remember that you’re human, not a productivity machine. And sometimes, that three-minute reminder is exactly what it takes to feel alive again in a world that has optimized everything except joy.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||