Publications

Bias and Trust in LLM-Driven Screening Automation: Experimental Insights from FinTech Lending
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to its widespread application across various domains, including financial technology (FinTech). However, public skepticism persists due to concerns over the unpredictability and biases of AI-powered systems. Through experiments involving two LLMs (GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus) and 1,095 human participants across 12 task sets, we investigated biases in large language models (LLMs) when making default judgments in peer-to-peer lending within the FinTech sector and examine decision-making performance and trust dynamics in human-machine collaboration. Our results indicate that LLMs consistently outperform humans in judgment accuracy—even without prior training on Chinese-language data and when processing unstructured information—highlighting their potential efficacy in FinTech applications. Both LLMs and human participants exhibit different bias structure, a mixing of elements of taste-based and statistical discrimination. Notably, LLMs exhibit a stronger tendency to lower the threshold for loan approvals for women, while imposing stricter loan terms on them, such as reduced lending amounts and higher interest rates. In collaborative settings, inputs from GPT-4 enhance human judgment accuracy, but providing human input does not improve the performance of either humans or LLMs. Participants exhibit significant algorithm aversion, which diminishes as the complexity or stakes of the lending situation increase. Additionally, women show a more pronounced algorithm aversion than men, although this difference lessens with higher complexity or lending stakes. These findings underscore the nuanced interplay between AI and human decision-making in FinTech lending and beyond, emphasizing the need for careful integration of AI systems to mitigate biases and improve lending outcomes.
Biting the Hand That Teaches: Unraveling the Economic Impact of Banning Private Tutoring in China
Shadow education in China is a significant social issue and a leading factor in exacerbating education inequality that fosters over-competition. In July 2021, the Chinese government implemented the Double Reduction Policy, which banned for-profit academic private tutoring. We estimate the economic consequences of this policy on the education industry in China by employing two novel datasets containing online job postings and firm registration information. We find that within four months after the policy implementation, online job postings for tutoring-related firms decreased by 89%, tutoring-related firm entry decreased by 50%, and their exits tripled. Cities with 10,000 (2%) more children lost 50 (3.7%) more education-related job opportunities, experienced 0.3 (5.9%) fewer firm entries, and 0.1 (1.3%) more firm exits per month. Surprisingly, not only academic tutoring firms were impacted, but also untargeted businesses involving in arts and sports tutoring were also heavily struck, although they were encouraged by the policy to promote children’s non-academic ability. This negative spillover can be partly explained by the interconnected ownership structure among academic and non-academic tutoring firms. Back-of-the-envelope calculations show that this policy led to 3 million job losses in four months and at least 11 billion RMB Value Added Tax losses in 18 months nationally.