Large Language Models Outperform Humans in Fraud Detection and Resistance to Motivated Investor Pressure

Large language models trained on human feedback may suppress fraud warnings when investors arrive already persuaded of a fraudulent opportunity. We tested this in a preregistered experiment across seven leading LLMs and twelve investment scenarios covering legitimate, high-risk, and objectively fraudulent opportunities, combining 3,360 AI advisory conversations with a 1,201-participant human benchmark. Contrary to predictions, motivated investor framing did not suppress AI fraud warnings; if anything, it marginally increased them. Endorsement reversal occurred in fewer than 3 in 1,000 observations. Human advisors endorsed fraudulent investments at baseline rates of 13-14%, versus 0% across all LLMs, and suppressed warnings under pressure at two to four times the AI rate. AI systems currently provide more consistent fraud warnings than lay humans in an identical advisory role.

Large language models accurately predict public perceptions of support for climate action worldwide

Although most people support climate action, widespread underestimation of others' support stalls individual and systemic changes. In this preregistered experiment, we test whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably predict these perception gaps worldwide. Using country-level indicators and public opinion data from 125 countries, we benchmark four state-of-the-art LLMs against Gallup World Poll 2021/22 data and statistical regressions. LLMs, particularly Claude, accurately capture public perceptions of others' willingness to contribute financially to climate action (MAE approximately 5 p.p.; r = .77), comparable to statistical models, though performance declines in less digitally connected, lower-GDP countries. Controlled tests show that LLMs capture the key psychological process - social projection with a systematic downward bias - and rely on structured reasoning rather than memorized values. Overall, LLMs provide a rapid tool for assessing perception gaps in climate action, serving as an alternative to costly surveys in resource-rich countries and as a complement in underrepresented populations.