English speakers use probabilistic phrases such as likely to communicate information about the probability or likelihood of events. Communication is successful to the extent that the listener grasps what the speaker means to convey and, if communication is successful, two individuals can potentially coordinate their actions based on shared knowledge about uncertainty. We first assessed human ability to estimate the probability and the ambiguity (imprecision) of 23 probabilistic phrases in two different contexts, investment advice and medical advice. We then had GPT4 (OpenAI), a recent Large Language Model, complete the same tasks as the human participants. We found that the median human participant and GPT4 assigned probability estimates that were in good agreement (proportions of variance accounted were close to .90). GPT4's estimates of probability both in the investment and Medical contexts were as close or closer to that of the human participants as the human participants were to one another. Estimates of probability for both the human participants and GPT4 were little affected by context. In contrast, human and GPT4 estimates of ambiguity were not in as good agreement. We repeated some of the GPT4 estimates to assess their stability: does GPT4, if run twice, produce the same or similar estimates? There is some indication that it does not.

英语演讲者使用概率短语例如'likely'来传达关于事件概率或可能性的信息。人类参与者和GPT4模型在评估概率和模糊性方面具有较高的一致性，但在模糊性方面存在较大差异。

在协调游戏中使用概率短语：人类对GPT-4的对比