Does ChatGPT Have a Mind?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11015v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:21:16 GMT
• Title: Does ChatGPT Have a Mind?
• Authors: Simon Goldstein, Benjamin A. Levinstein,
• Abstract summary: This paper examines whether Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT possess minds, focusing specifically on whether they have a genuine folk psychology encompassing beliefs, desires, and intentions. First, we survey various philosophical theories of representation, including informational, causal, structural, and teleosemantic accounts, arguing that LLMs satisfy key conditions proposed by each. Second, we explore whether LLMs exhibit robust dispositions to perform actions, a necessary component of folk psychology.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper examines the question of whether Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT possess minds, focusing specifically on whether they have a genuine folk psychology encompassing beliefs, desires, and intentions. We approach this question by investigating two key aspects: internal representations and dispositions to act. First, we survey various philosophical theories of representation, including informational, causal, structural, and teleosemantic accounts, arguing that LLMs satisfy key conditions proposed by each. We draw on recent interpretability research in machine learning to support these claims. Second, we explore whether LLMs exhibit robust dispositions to perform actions, a necessary component of folk psychology. We consider two prominent philosophical traditions, interpretationism and representationalism, to assess LLM action dispositions. While we find evidence suggesting LLMs may satisfy some criteria for having a mind, particularly in game-theoretic environments, we conclude that the data remains inconclusive. Additionally, we reply to several skeptical challenges to LLM folk psychology, including issues of sensory grounding, the "stochastic parrots" argument, and concerns about memorization. Our paper has three main upshots. First, LLMs do have robust internal representations. Second, there is an open question to answer about whether LLMs have robust action dispositions. Third, existing skeptical challenges to LLM representation do not survive philosophical scrutiny.

Related papers

• The Stochastic Parrot on LLM's Shoulder: A Summative Assessment of Physical Concept Understanding [65.28200190598082]
  We propose a summative assessment over a carefully designed physical concept understanding task, PhysiCo. Our task alleviates the issue via the usage of grid-format inputs that abstractly describe physical phenomena. A comprehensive study on our task demonstrates: (1) state-of-the-art LLMs, including GP-4o, lag behind humans by 40%; (2) the parrot, o1 phenomenon is present in LLMs as they fail on our grid task but can describe and recognize the same concepts well in natural language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T04:00:03Z)
• ToMATO: Verbalizing the Mental States of Role-Playing LLMs for Benchmarking Theory of Mind [25.524355451378593]
  ToMATO is a new ToM benchmark formulated as multiple-choice QA over conversations. We capture both first- and second-order mental states across five categories: belief, intention, desire, emotion, and knowledge. ToMATO consists of 5.4k questions, 753 conversations, and 15 personality trait patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-15T14:47:02Z)
• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [55.51468462722138]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability. Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts. We identify intrinsic self-correction can cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T15:39:31Z)
• Are LLMs Aware that Some Questions are not Open-ended? [58.93124686141781]
  We study whether Large Language Models are aware that some questions have limited answers and need to respond more deterministically. The lack of question awareness in LLMs leads to two phenomena: (1) too casual to answer non-open-ended questions or (2) too boring to answer open-ended questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T06:07:00Z)
• Cognitive phantoms in LLMs through the lens of latent variables [0.3441021278275805]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly reach real-world applications, necessitating a better understanding of their behaviour. Recent studies administering psychometric questionnaires to LLMs report human-like traits in LLMs, potentially influencing behaviour. This approach suffers from a validity problem: it presupposes that these traits exist in LLMs and that they are measurable with tools designed for humans. This study investigates this problem by comparing latent structures of personality between humans and three LLMs using two validated personality questionnaires.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T12:42:35Z)
• LLM Internal States Reveal Hallucination Risk Faced With a Query [62.29558761326031]
  Humans have a self-awareness process that allows us to recognize what we don't know when faced with queries. This paper investigates whether Large Language Models can estimate their own hallucination risk before response generation. By a probing estimator, we leverage LLM self-assessment, achieving an average hallucination estimation accuracy of 84.32% at run time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T17:08:52Z)
• Through the Theory of Mind's Eye: Reading Minds with Multimodal Video Large Language Models [52.894048516550065]
  We develop a pipeline for multimodal ToM reasoning using video and text. We also enable explicit ToM reasoning by retrieving key frames for answering a ToM question.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T18:24:31Z)
• GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations [87.99872683336395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely recognized tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:23:36Z)
• Large Language Models: The Need for Nuance in Current Debates and a Pragmatic Perspective on Understanding [1.3654846342364308]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are unparalleled in their ability to generate grammatically correct, fluent text. This position paper critically assesses three points recurring in critiques of LLM capacities. We outline a pragmatic perspective on the issue of real' understanding and intentionality in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:51:04Z)
• Are LLMs the Master of All Trades? : Exploring Domain-Agnostic Reasoning Skills of LLMs [0.0]
  This study aims to investigate the performance of large language models (LLMs) on different reasoning tasks. My findings indicate that LLMs excel at analogical and moral reasoning, yet struggle to perform as proficiently on spatial reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-22T22:53:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.