It's nowhere near early enough for those of us in the northern hemisphere to start struggling against winter's somnolent spell, so there's no need for excuses as you take to your bed with a pile of good books. And there's plenty to keep you occupied while you eschew the chilly outdoors. This month, we have climate hope from a well-placed environmental reporter, formerly of this parish, an honest memoir from a star scientist and a jaw-dropping account of the commodification of women's bodies. Given the Valentine's Day fun this month, we also have a book that may challenge what we thought we knew about finding love. It's always good to get all the help we can in that department - enjoy! "On clear moonlit nights we sometimes step outside and howl at the moon together. It is cathartic, primal and a really good laugh. I am not sure what our neighbours think about it, though."

Technology AI This AI thinks it's the 1800s What happens when you train an LLM only on limited historical data? Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent six days a week. An interesting thing about contemporary artificial intelligence models, specifically large language models (LLMs): They can only output text based on what's in their training dataset. Models, including ChatGPT and Claude, are "trained" on large databases of text. The models, when asked a question, statistically create a response by calculating, one word at a time, what the most likely next word should be.

This study investigates the efficacy of using multimodal machine learning techniques to detect deception in dyadic interactions, focusing on the integration of data from both the deceiver and the deceived. We compare early and late fusion approaches, utilizing audio and video data - specifically, Action Units and gaze information - across all possible combinations of modalities and participants. Our dataset, newly collected from Swedish native speakers engaged in truth or lie scenarios on emotionally relevant topics, serves as the basis for our analysis. The results demonstrate that incorporating both speech and facial information yields superior performance compared to single-modality approaches. Moreover, including data from both participants significantly enhances deception detection accuracy, with the best performance (71%) achieved using a late fusion strategy applied to both modalities and participants. These findings align with psychological theories suggesting differential control of facial and vocal expressions during initial interactions. As the first study of its kind on a Scandinavian cohort, this research lays the groundwork for future investigations into dyadic interactions, particularly within psychotherapy settings.

The vision of a universal AI tutor has remained elusive, despite decades of effort. Could LLMs be the game-changer? We overview novel issues arising from developing a nationwide AI tutor. We highlight the practical questions that point to specific gaps in our scientific understanding of the learning process.

Human achievement, whether in culture, science, or technology, is unparalleled in the known existence. This achievement is tied to the enormous communities of knowledge, made possible by language: leaving theological content aside, it is very much true that "in the beginning was the word", and that in Western societies, this became particularly identified with the written word. There lies the challenge regarding modern age chatbots: they can 'do' language apparently as well as ourselves and there is a natural question of whether they can be considered intelligent, in the same way as we are or otherwise. Are humans uniquely intelligent? We consider this question in terms of the psychological literature on intelligence, evidence for intelligence in non-human animals, the role of written language in science and technology, progress with artificial intelligence, the history of intelligence testing (for both humans and machines), and the role of embodiment in intelligence. We think that it is increasingly difficult to consider humans uniquely intelligent. There are current limitations in chatbots, e.g., concerning perceptual and social awareness, but much attention is currently devoted to overcoming such limitations.

Traditional psychological models of belief revision focus on face-to-face interactions, but with the rise of social media, more effective models are needed to capture belief revision at scale, in this rich text-based online discourse. Here, we use a hybrid approach, utilizing large language models (LLMs) to develop a model that predicts successful persuasion using features derived from psychological experiments. Our approach leverages LLM generated ratings of features previously examined in the literature to build a random forest classification model that predicts whether a message will result in belief change. Of the eight features tested, \textit{epistemic emotion} and \textit{willingness to share} were the top-ranking predictors of belief change in the model. Our findings provide insights into the characteristics of persuasive messages and demonstrate how LLMs can enhance models of successful persuasion based on psychological theory. Given these insights, this work has broader applications in fields such as online influence detection and misinformation mitigation, as well as measuring the effectiveness of online narratives.

Large language models (LLMs) solve complex problems yet fail on simpler variants, suggesting they achieve correct outputs through mechanisms fundamentally different from human reasoning. To understand this gap, we synthesize cognitive science research into a taxonomy of 28 cognitive elements spanning reasoning invariants, meta-cognitive controls, representations for organizing reasoning & knowledge, and transformation operations. We introduce a fine-grained evaluation framework and conduct the first large-scale empirical analysis of 192K traces from 18 models across text, vision, and audio, complemented by 54 human think-aloud traces, which we make publicly available. We find that models under-utilize cognitive elements correlated with success, narrowing to rigid sequential processing on ill-structured problems where diverse representations and meta-cognitive monitoring are critical. Human traces show more abstraction and conceptual processing, while models default to surface-level enumeration. Meta-analysis of 1.6K LLM reasoning papers reveals the research community concentrates on easily quantifiable elements (sequential organization: 55%, decomposition: 60%) but neglecting meta-cognitive controls (self-awareness: 16%) that correlate with success. Models possess behavioral repertoires associated with success but fail to deploy them spontaneously. Leveraging these patterns, we develop test-time reasoning guidance that automatically scaffold successful structures, improving performance by up to 66.7% on complex problems. By establishing a shared vocabulary between cognitive science and LLM research, our framework enables systematic diagnosis of reasoning failures and principled development of models that reason through robust cognitive mechanisms rather than spurious shortcuts, while providing tools to test theories of human cognition at scale.

Technological systems increasingly mediate human information exchange, spanning interactions among humans as well as between humans and artificial agents. The unprecedented scale and reliance on information disseminated through these systems substantially expand the scope of information-based influence that can both enable and undermine sound decision-making. Consequently, understanding and protecting decision-making today faces growing challenges, as individuals and organizations must navigate evolving opportunities and information-based threats across varied domains and information environments. While these risks are widely recognized, research remains fragmented: work evaluating information-based threat phenomena has progressed largely in isolation from foundational studies of human information processing. In this review, we synthesize insights from both domains to identify shared cognitive mechanisms that mediate vulnerability to information-based threats and shape behavioral outcomes. Finally, we outline directions for future research aimed at integrating these perspectives, emphasizing the importance of such integration for mitigating human vulnerabilities and aligning human-machine representations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across a wide range of industries, primarily due to their impressive generative abilities. Yet, their potential in applications requiring cognitive abilities, such as psychological counseling, remains largely untapped. This paper investigates the key question: \textit{Can LLMs be effectively applied to psychological counseling?} To determine whether an LLM can effectively take on the role of a psychological counselor, the first step is to assess whether it meets the qualifications required for such a role, namely the ability to pass the U.S. National Counselor Certification Exam (NCE). This is because, just as a human counselor must pass a certification exam to practice, an LLM must demonstrate sufficient psychological knowledge to meet the standards required for such a role. To address this, we introduce PsychCounsel-Bench, a benchmark grounded in U.S.national counselor examinations, a licensure test for professional counselors that requires about 70\% accuracy to pass. PsychCounsel-Bench comprises approximately 2,252 carefully curated single-choice questions, crafted to require deep understanding and broad enough to cover various sub-disciplines of psychology. This benchmark provides a comprehensive assessment of an LLM's ability to function as a counselor. Our evaluation shows that advanced models such as GPT-4o, Llama3.3-70B, and Gemma3-27B achieve well above the passing threshold, while smaller open-source models (e.g., Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B) remain far below it. These results suggest that only frontier LLMs are currently capable of meeting counseling exam standards, highlighting both the promise and the challenges of developing psychology-oriented LLMs. We release the proposed dataset for public use: https://github.com/cloversjtu/PsychCounsel-Bench