Models Match or Surpass Objective Human Performance on Various Tasks

doi:10.1017/9781009639057.006

Chapter 4 - Models Match or Surpass Objective Human Performance on Various Tasks

from Part I - Understanding Empathy

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2026

Ariel Goldstein and

Gabriel Stanovsky

Edited by

Anat Perry and

C. Daryl Cameron

Show author details

Anat Perry: Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
C. Daryl Cameron: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Artificial Intelligence systems increasingly match or surpass human performance across a wide range of cognitive tasks. Recent advances in large language models have yielded conversational abilities often indistinguishable from human dialogue. In this chapter, we argue that whether artificial agents should be considered empathetic depends on how empathy itself is defined and how it relates to subjective experience. We show that different philosophical schools produce distinct, and often incompatible, answers to the question of whether such a system should be considered genuinely empathetic. On one hand, empathy is a functional trait that can be fully characterized by observable behavior; on the other hand, empathy is inseparable from subjective experience and conscious feeling. Drawing on the philosophical notion of the “zombie” we introduce a thought experiment involving a hypothetical chatbot that exhibits perfect empathic behavior across all conceivable benchmarks while lacking any subjective experience. This framing allows us to disentangle functional performance from conceptual attribution and to examine whether empathy judgments depend on observable behavior alone or on assumptions about inner experience. As artificial agents become increasingly integrated into emotionally contexts, understanding how and why humans attribute empathy to machines becomes a pressing scientific, ethical, and societal question.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models Empathy Metacognition Philosophical Zombies Human–Computer Interaction Consciousness Functionalism Subjective Experience AI Ethics

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Empathy and Artificial Intelligence
Challenges, Advances and Ethical Considerations
, pp. 40 - 49

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009639057.006 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In FAccT ’21: ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610–623).Google Scholar

Bouzy, B., & Cazenave, T. (2001). Computer Go: An AI oriented survey. Artificial Intelligence, 132(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00127-8 CrossRef Google Scholar

Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., … Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165 CrossRef Google Scholar

Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., … Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712 Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford Paperbacks.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. M., & Churchland, P. S. (1990). Could a machine think? Scientific American, 262(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0190–32 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 CrossRef Google Scholar

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dehaene, S. (2012). Consciousness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts. Viking Press.Google Scholar

Dummett, M. (1996). What is a theory of meaning? (I). In The seas of language (pp. 1–33). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198236212.003.0001 CrossRef Google Scholar

Ensmenger, N. (2012). Chess and the art of program maintenance. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 34(3), 6–18.Google Scholar

Esteva, A., Kuprel, B., Novoa, R. A., Ko, J., Swetter, S. M., Blau, H. M., & Thrun, S. (2017). Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature, 542(7639), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Goldstein, A., & Stanovsky, G. (2024). Do zombies understand? A choose-your-own-adventure exploration of machine cognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00499.Google Scholar

Gozzano, S., & LaBerge, D. (eds.). (1995). Consciousness in philosophy and cognitive neuroscience. Springer.Google Scholar

Gunkel, D. J. (2018). Robot rights. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11444.001.0001 CrossRef Google Scholar

Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2021). Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.03300 CrossRef Google Scholar

Ho, A., Hancock, J., & Miner, A. S. (2018). Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. The Journal of Communication, 68(4), 712–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy026 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Jakesch, M., Hancock, J. T., & Naaman, M. (2023). Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(11), Article e2208839120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208839120 Google Scholar PubMed

Jefferson, G. (1949). The mind of mechanical man. British Medical Journal, 1(4616), 1105–1110. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.4616.1105 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kirk, R. (1974). Sentience and behaviour. Mind, LXXXIII(329), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXXXIII.329.43 CrossRef Google Scholar

Liang, P., Bommasani, R., Lee, T., Tsipras, D., Soylu, D., Yasunaga, M., … Koreeda, Y. (2023). Holistic evaluation of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. https://openreview.net/forum?id=iO4LZibEqW Google Scholar

Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., King, A., & Morency, L.-P. (2014). It’s only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043 CrossRef Google Scholar

Manning, C. D. (2022). Human language understanding & reasoning. Daedalus, 151(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01905 CrossRef Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. (1990). Chess as the drosophila of AI. In Marsland, T. A & Schaeffer, J (eds.), Computers, chess, and cognition (pp. 227–237). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9080-0_14 CrossRef Google Scholar

Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183914 CrossRef Google Scholar

Newborn, M. (1997). Kasparov versus Deep Blue: Computer chess comes of age. Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nivre, J., De Marneffe, M. C., Ginter, F., Goldberg, Y., Hajič, J., Manning, C. D., … Zeman, D. (2016). Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual treebank collection. In Calzolari, N, Choukri, K, Mazo, H, Moreno, A, Declerck, T, Goggi, S, Grobelnik, M, Odijk, J, Piperidis, S, Maegaard, B, & Mariani, J (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2016 (pp. 1659–1666). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar

Oepen, S., Kuhlmann, M., Miyao, Y., Zeman, D., Cinková, S., Flickinger, D., Hajič, J., & Urešová, Z. (2015). SemEval 2015 Task 18: Broad-coverage semantic dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015) (pp. 915–926). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-2153 CrossRef Google Scholar

O’Gieblyn, M. (2021). God, human, animal, machine: Technology, metaphor, and the search for meaning. Knopf Publishing Group.Google Scholar

OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774.Google Scholar

Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A., … Sutskever, I. (2021). Zero-shot text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint.Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756 CrossRef Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (2010). Why dualism (and materialism) fail to account for consciousness. In Lee, R. E (ed.), Questioning nineteenth century assumptions about knowledge, III: Dualism (pp. 5–48). SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Shannon, C. E. (1950). Programming a computer for playing chess. Philosophical Magazine, 41(314), 256–275.Google Scholar

Sharma, A., Lin, I. W., Miner, A. S., Atkins, D. C., & Althoff, T. (2021). Towards facilitating empathic conversations in online mental health support: A reinforcement learning approach. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (pp. 194–205).CrossRef Google Scholar

Shum, H. Y., He, X., & Li, D. (2018). From Eliza to XiaoIce: Challenges and opportunities with social chatbots. Frontiers of Information Technology and Electronic Engineering, 19(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1700826 CrossRef Google Scholar

Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., Van Den Driessche, G., … Hassabis, D. (2016). Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587), 484–489. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16961 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Silver, D., Hubert, T., & Schrittwieser, J. (2017). Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.01815.Google Scholar

Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., … Hassabis, D. (2018). A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science, 362(6419), 1140–1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar6404 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sorin, V., Brin, D., Barash, Y., Konen, E., Charney, A., Nadkarni, G., & Klang, E. (2024). Large language models and empathy: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e52597.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., … Wu, Z. (2023). Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. https://openreview.net/forum?id=uyTL5Bvosj Google Scholar

Tunyasuvunakool, K., Adler, J., Wu, Z., Green, T., Zielinski, M., Žídek, A., … Hassabis, D. (2021). Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature, 596(7873), 590–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586 -021-03819-2 CrossRef Google Scholar

Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460.CrossRef Google Scholar

Turing, A. M. (1953). Digital computers applied to games. In Bowden, B. V. (ed.), Faster than thought: A symposium on digital computing machines (pp. 286–297). Pitman.Google Scholar

Van Den Herik, H. J., Uiterwijk, J. W. H. M., & Van Rijswijck, J. (2002). Games solved: Now and in the future. Artificial Intelligence, 134(1–2), 277–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00152-7 CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Gulick, R. (2022). Consciousness. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/consciousness/Google Scholar

Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2018). GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP (pp. 353–355). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5446 CrossRef Google Scholar

Wang, X., Li, X., Yin, Z., Wu, Y., & Liu, J. (2023). Emotional intelligence of large language models. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 17 . https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909231213958 CrossRef Google Scholar

Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA: A computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168 CrossRef Google Scholar

Welivita, A., & Pu, P. (2024). Are large language models more empathetic than humans? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05063.Google Scholar

Zhou, L., Gao, J., Li, D., & Shum, H.-Y. (2020). The design and implementation of XiaoIce, an empathetic social chatbot. Computational Linguistics, 46(1), 53–93. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00368 CrossRef Google Scholar

Zhou, M. X., & Fischer, M. H. (2019). AI love you: Developments in human–robot intimate relationships. Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.