Filtering and annotating textual data are routine tasks in many areas, like social media or news analytics. Automating these tasks allows to scale the analyses wrt. speed and breadth of content covered and decreases the manual effort required. Due to technical advancements in Natural Language Processing, specifically the success of large foundation models, a new tool for automating such annotation processes by using a text-to-text interface given written guidelines without providing training samples has become available. In this work, we assess these advancements in-the-wild by empirically testing them in an annotation task on German Twitter data about social and political European crises. We compare the prompt-based results with our human annotation and preceding classification approaches, including Naive Bayes and a BERT-based fine-tuning/domain adaptation pipeline. Our results show that the prompt-based approach – despite being limited by local computation resources during the model selection – is comparable with the fine-tuned BERT but without any annotated training data. Our findings emphasize the ongoing paradigm shift in the NLP landscape, i.e., the unification of downstream tasks and elimination of the need for pre-labeled training data.

LLMs increasingly engage with psychological instruments, yet how they represent constructs internally remains poorly understood. We introduce a novel approach to “fingerprinting” LLMs through their factor correlation patterns on standardized psychological assessments to deepen the understanding of LLMs constructs representation. Using the Humor Style Questionnaire as a case study, we analyze how six LLMs represent and correlate humor-related constructs to survey participants. Our results show that they exhibit little similarity to human response patterns. In contrast, participants’ subsamples demonstrate remarkably high internal consistency. Exploratory graph analysis further confirms that no LLM successfully recovers the four constructs of the Humor Style Questionnaire. These findings suggest that despite advances in natural language capabilities, current LLMs represent psychological constructs in fundamentally different ways than humans, questioning the validity of application as human simulacra.