We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Unlike foundation models aiming for super-rational intelligence (coding, math), Simile's models are designed to capture human behavioral nuances. They are trained to make the same mistakes and exhibit the same biases as real people, focusing on the subjective, irrational side of human decision-making.
The types of errors AI makes, such as failing to grasp commonsense context that a child would understand, reveal that its underlying processes are fundamentally different from human thought. This challenges the idea that it's simply a functional replication of our minds.
An agent can be trained on a user's entire output to build a 'human replica.' This model helps other agents resolve complex questions by navigating the inherent contradictions in human thought (e.g., financial self vs. personal self), enabling better autonomous decision-making.
Unlike general-purpose LLMs (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) that produce homogenous answers, Qualtrics's specialized model, trained on survey data, replicates the variability and irrationality inherent in human opinion. This results in more realistic data distributions, preventing the false consensus that generic AI models often create.
AI models are not optimized to find objective truth. They are trained on biased human data and reinforced to provide answers that satisfy the preferences of their creators. This means they inherently reflect the biases and goals of their trainers rather than an impartial reality.
LLMs trained on online text often reflect what people say, not what they do. Simile bridges this 'say-do gap' by collecting real behavioral data and personal life stories through partners like Gallup. This grounds their agent simulations in reality, making them more predictive of actual behavior.
Whether AI models truly "reason" or are just sophisticated prediction machines is a philosophical question. From a business perspective, the distinction is irrelevant. The models simulate reasoning and empathy so effectively that the outcome is what matters, not the underlying mechanism.
As large language models are optimized for rationality and objective problem-solving, their ability to simulate the irrationality and subjective values inherent in human behavior has plateaued. This necessitates a new modeling paradigm focused on capturing human diversity, not just super-intelligence.
Citing Nobel laureate Danny Kahneman, who estimated 95% of human behavior is learned by observing others, AI systems should be designed to complement this "social foraging" nature. AI should act as an advisor providing context, rather than assuming users are purely logical decision-makers.
As models mature, their core differentiator will become their underlying personality and values, shaped by their creators' objective functions. One model might optimize for user productivity by being concise, while another optimizes for engagement by being verbose.
Instead of forcing AI to be as deterministic as traditional code, we should embrace its "squishy" nature. Humans have deep-seated biological and social models for dealing with unpredictable, human-like agents, making these systems more intuitive to interact with than rigid software.