Beliefs serve as the foundation for human cognition and decision-making. They guide individuals in deriving meaning from their lives, shaping their behaviors, and forming social connections. Therefore, a model that encapsulates beliefs and their interrelationships is crucial for quantitatively studying the influence of beliefs on our actions. Despite its importance, research on the interplay between human beliefs has often been limited to a small set of beliefs pertaining to specific issues, with a heavy reliance on surveys or experiments. Here, we propose a method for extracting nuanced relations between thousands of beliefs by leveraging large-scale user participation data from an online debate platform and mapping these beliefs to an embedding space using a fine-tuned large language model (LLM). This belief embedding space effectively encapsulates the interconnectedness of diverse beliefs as well as polarization across various social issues. We discover that the positions within this belief space predict new beliefs of individuals. Furthermore, we find that the relative distance between one's existing beliefs and new beliefs can serve as a quantitative estimate of cognitive dissonance, allowing us to predict new beliefs. Our study highlights how modern LLMs, when combined with collective online records of human beliefs, can offer insights into the fundamental principles that govern human belief formation and decision-making processes.

Such fine-tuning Stance detection is a fundamental computational approaches can benefit from both the general language task that is widely used across many disciplines understanding from the pre-training as well such as political science and communication studies as the problem-specific thing, even without spending (Wang et al., 2019b; Küçük and Can, 2020) Its a huge amount of computing resources (Wang goal is to extract the standpoint or stance (e.g., Favor, et al., 2022a). Against, or Neutral) towards a target from a More recently, the GPT family of models (Radford given text. Given that modern democratic societies et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020) birthed another make societal decisions by aggregating people's explicit powerful and even simpler paradigm of incontext stances through voting, estimation of peoples' learning ("few-shot" or "zero-shot"). Instead stances is a useful task. While a representative survey of tuning any parameters of the model, it is the gold standard, it falls short in scalability simply uses the input to guide the model to produce and cost (Salganik, 2019). Surveys can also produce the desired output for downstream tasks. For biased results due to the people's tendency to instance, a few examples related to the task can be report more socially acceptable positions even in fed as the context to the LLM.

ChatGPT, the first large language model (LLM) with mass adoption, has demonstrated remarkable performance in numerous natural language tasks. Despite its evident usefulness, evaluating ChatGPT's performance in diverse problem domains remains challenging due to the closed nature of the model and its continuous updates via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). We highlight the issue of data contamination in ChatGPT evaluations, with a case study of the task of stance detection. We discuss the challenge of preventing data contamination and ensuring fair model evaluation in the age of closed and continuously trained models.