We propose a general method to break down a main complex task into a set of intermediary easier sub-tasks, which are formulated in natural language as binary questions related to the final target task. Our method allows for representing each example by a vector consisting of the answers to these questions. We call this representation Natural Language Learned Features (NLLF). NLLF is generated by a small transformer language model (e.g., BERT) that has been trained in a Natural Language Inference (NLI) fashion, using weak labels automatically obtained from a Large Language Model (LLM). We show that the LLM normally struggles for the main task using in-context learning, but can handle these easiest subtasks and produce useful weak labels to train a BERT. The NLI-like training of the BERT allows for tackling zero-shot inference with any binary question, and not necessarily the ones seen during the training. We show that this NLLF vector not only helps to reach better performances by enhancing any classifier, but that it can be used as input of an easy-to-interpret machine learning model like a decision tree. This decision tree is interpretable but also reaches high performances, surpassing those of a pre-trained transformer in some cases. We have successfully applied this method to two completely different tasks: detecting incoherence in students’ answers to open-ended mathematics exam questions, and screening abstracts for a systematic literature review of scientific papers on climate change and agroecology.

Recent advancements in natural language processing by large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, have been suggested to approach Artificial General Intelligence. And yet, it is still under dispute whether LLMs possess similar reasoning abilities to humans. This study evaluates GPT-4 and various other LLMs in judging the profoundness of mundane, motivational, and pseudo-profound statements. We found a significant statement-to-statement correlation between the LLMs and humans, irrespective of the type of statements and the prompting technique used. However, LLMs systematically overestimate the profoundness of nonsensical statements, with the exception of Tk-instruct, which uniquely underestimates the profoundness of statements. Only few-shot learning prompts, as opposed to chain-of-thought prompting, draw LLMs ratings closer to humans. Furthermore, this work provides insights into the potential biases induced by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), inducing an increase in the bias to overestimate the profoundness of statements.