Large-language models have proven to be remarkable if inconsistent parrots of public attitudes and opinions. The extent to which LLMs are able to produce reasonable approximations of cultural taste remains an open empirical question that becomes more urgent by the day, with market research companies already offering provisional 'synthetic' survey panels and the contamination of standard survey data from LLM-generated responses. In this study, we build on past work on silicon sampling by extending considerations of their ecological, relational, and positional fidelity in the doomain of cultural tastes. We use large-language models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and DeepSeek to produce 554,940 silicon surrogates of survey respondents from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA). We find these silicon surrogates' tastes to be highly stylized facsimiles of human tastes. First, silicon samples are super-omnivorous with a systematic postive-bias for liking. These individual-level bias of silicon samples are not well-explained by the WEIRD-bias often discussed in the literature. Second, the complex relationality in real taste structures is completely distorted among silicon samples. Third, very little of the known cultural alignment between tastes and social space are preserved. Silicon samples juvenilize age-taste associations, resurrect anachronistic class-taste associations, and caricaturize gender- and race-taste associations. Key words: AI, taste, consumption, culture, silicon sampling, meta-analysis.
Silicon sampling-using large language models (LLMs) to simulate human survey respondents-has emerged as a promising approach for augmenting traditional survey research. However, most evaluations rely on distributional comparisons rather than individual-level prediction, which risks conflating pattern matching with coherent respondent-level prediction. We propose cross-survey transfer, a more rigorous evaluation framework in which an LLM is given a respondent's answers to one set of questions and must predict their answers to entirely different questions from the same survey. Using data from the Taiwan Election and Democratization Study (TEDS) 2024, three open-weight LLMs (27B-120B parameters), and supervised machine learning baselines, we find that: (1) zero-shot LLMs achieve 52% accuracy on genuinely unseen items, closing to within 6 percentage points (pp) of a supervised random forest trained on same-population data; (2) a stable construct predictability hierarchy emerges, from 67% for partisan attitudes to 23% for sovereignty; and (3) variance collapse and safety alignment effects-two commonly cited LLM limitations-turn out to be more nuanced than previously reported, with variance collapse affecting supervised models as well and alignment effects varying dramatically across model families. These findings clarify both the promise and boundaries of silicon sampling.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We make the cross-domain benchmark and the evaluation framework available on request, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.
LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human survey responses, but prior work has mainly evaluated replication using mean-level or aggregate agreement, offering limited insight into whether LLMs reproduce the variability of human behavior. We evaluate LLM-based survey replication at the distributional level using a non-public 2010 consumer choice experiment on Korean instant noodle purchases, a setting unlikely to overlap with model training data. We evaluate three response variables of differing statistical type: binary purchase incidence, categorical brand choice, and count purchase quantity. For each, we compare human and LLM responses at mean-level, pattern, and distributional alignment, and against reference baselines from the human data alone. LLMs reproduce condition-level patterns reasonably well but fail to capture distributional structure: for purchase quantity, no model beats a condition-insensitive baseline that simply matches the pooled human distribution. Because models that match human means well can still produce distributions further from humans than this baseline, mean-based evaluation alone can be actively misleading. Replication also varies with input configuration, with structured personas and multimodal inputs improving alignment while explicit reasoning prompting degrades it monotonically.