Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to vastly improve human decision-making. In line with this, researchers have increasingly sought to understand how people view AI, often documenting skepticism and even outright aversion to these tools. In the present research, we complement these findings by documenting the performance of LLMs in the personal advice domain. In addition, we shift the focus in a new direction-exploring how interacting with AI tools, specifically large language models, impacts the users view of themselves. In five preregistered experiments (N = 1,722), we explore evaluations of human- and ChatGPT-generated advice along three dimensions: quality, effectiveness, and authenticity. We find that ChatGPT produces superior advice relative to the average online participant even in a domain in which people strongly prefer human-generated advice (dating and relationships). We also document a bias against ChatGPT-generated advice which is present only when participants are aware the advice was generated by ChatGPT. Novel to the present investigation, we then explore how interacting with these tools impacts self-evaluations. We manipulate the order in which people interact with these tools relative to self-generation and find that generating advice before interacting with ChatGPT advice boosts the quality ratings of the ChatGPT advice. At the same time, interacting with ChatGPT-generated advice before self-generating advice decreases self-ratings of authenticity. Taken together, we document a bias towards AI in the context of personal advice. Further, we identify an important externality in the use of these tools-they can invoke social comparisons of me vs. the machine.

Technological innovations have become a key driver of societal advancements. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of machine learning (ML), which has developed algorithmic models that shape our decisions, behaviors, and outcomes. These tools have widespread use, in part, because they can synthesize massive amounts of data to make seemingly objective recommendations. Yet, in the past few years, the ML community has been drawing attention to the need for caution when interpreting and using these models. This is because these models are created by humans, from data generated by humans, whose psychology allows for various biases that impact how the models are developed, trained, tested, and interpreted. As psychologists, we thus face a fork in the road: Down the first path, we can continue to use these models without examining and addressing these critical flaws and rely on computer scientists to try to mitigate them. Down the second path, we can turn our expertise in bias toward this growing field, collaborating with computer scientists to reduce the models' deleterious outcomes. This article serves to light the way down the second path by identifying how extant psychological research can help examine and curtail bias in ML models.