cs.CLMay 29, 2026

If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

Authors: Adrian de Wynter

Organizations: Microsoft · The University of York

Abstract

Much research has been carried out on large language models (LLMs) and LLM-powered agentic workflows. However, many works within the field state emergence of, ascribe to, or assume, generalised anthropomorphic attributes to them (e.g., morality or understanding of natural language). Our goal is not to argue in favour or against the existence of these attributes, but to point out that these conclusions could be incorrect. For this we build and train a simple neural network on the videogame Age of Empires II, and note that any entity in a sufficiently-powerful substrate, such as LEGO or the Greater Boston Area, could also present such attributes. Hence, the purported anthropomorphic attributes of LLMs are empirically non-unique: although some properties (e.g., responses to prompts) could remain invariant, others, such as the interpretation of their perceived behaviour, might change with the substrate. Thus, any empirically-grounded discussion on these attributes requires explicit measurement criteria; otherwise the interpretation is left to the representation. We then show that assuming that these attributes exist or not in a system, independent of the substrate and in a generalised way, leads to either circular or uninformative conclusions. This is regardless of the experimenter's viewpoint on the subject, or whether the outcome shows existence or non-existence. Finally we propose a 'null' assumption, where one assumes LLM non-uniqueness instead of assuming anthropomorphic attributes to set up an experiment, along with examples of it. We also discuss potential objections to our work, briefly survey the field, and prove that Age of Empires II is functionally- and Turing-complete.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Feb 13, 2025cs.CL

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.
Lujain Ibrahim, Myra Cheng
AnthropomorphismLarge Language Model Performance
AskPDF
Jun 10, 2026cs.CL

LLMs Can Better Capture Human Judgments--With the Right Prompts

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.
Danica Dillion, Chen Cecilia Liu, Baihui Wang +5
Human JudgmentArtificial Intelligence AlignmentMoral ReasoningHuman-Ai InteractionPrompt EngineeringMean Opinion Scores+2
AskPDF
May 28, 2026cs.CL

HEART-Bench: Do LLM Agents Exhibit Human-like Psychology?

While LLM agents have demonstrated remarkable task-oriented abilities such as planning, reasoning, and action, few works have treated them as complete human personalities where emotional dimensions hold equal importance. In this paper, we introduce a novel benchmark to systematically assess whether LLM agents can simulate coherent, human-like psychology. Specifically, our benchmark constructs 11 diverse human characters grounded in orthogonal Big Five personality traits, with each profile deeply integrated with 1,000 structured autobiographical-style episodic memories distributed across theory-grounded developmental life stages. To rigorously evaluate the psychological manifestations of LLMs, we designed a curated suite of 64 decision-making scenarios, guided by the DIAMONDS taxonomy, a psychological framework that characterizes situations along eight dimensions: Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Deception, and Sociality. By subjecting agents to varying scenarios, the benchmark evaluates whether they can consolidate their innate personality traits and autobiographical memories to make behavioral decisions that are consistent with their specific psychological profiles. After systematic human validation and filtering, we obtained a benchmark consisting of 673 multiple-choice questions (MCQs). We believe this benchmark provides a principled and scalable testbed for studying human-like emotions, personality consistency, and value-consistent behavioural decision-making in LLM-based agents.
Weihan Peng, Chenxu Zhang, Qianao Wang +7
PersonalityLarge Language Model AgentsEpisodic MemoryDecisions
AskPDF