Going Whole Hog: A Philosophical Defense of AI Cognition

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13988v1
• Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 11:36:25 GMT
• Title: Going Whole Hog: A Philosophical Defense of AI Cognition
• Authors: Herman Cappelen, Josh Dever,
• Abstract summary: We argue against prevailing methodologies in AI philosophy, rejecting starting points based on low-level computational details.<n>We employ 'Holistic Network Assumptions' to argue for the full suite of cognitive states.<n>We conclude by speculating on the possibility of LLMs possessing 'alien' contents beyond human conceptual schemes.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: This work defends the 'Whole Hog Thesis': sophisticated Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are full-blown linguistic and cognitive agents, possessing understanding, beliefs, desires, knowledge, and intentions. We argue against prevailing methodologies in AI philosophy, rejecting starting points based on low-level computational details ('Just an X' fallacy) or pre-existing theories of mind. Instead, we advocate starting with simple, high-level observations of LLM behavior (e.g., answering questions, making suggestions) -- defending this data against charges of metaphor, loose talk, or pretense. From these observations, we employ 'Holistic Network Assumptions' -- plausible connections between mental capacities (e.g., answering implies knowledge, knowledge implies belief, action implies intention) -- to argue for the full suite of cognitive states. We systematically rebut objections based on LLM failures (hallucinations, planning/reasoning errors), arguing these don't preclude agency, often mirroring human fallibility. We address numerous 'Games of Lacks', arguing that LLMs do not lack purported necessary conditions for cognition (e.g., semantic grounding, embodiment, justification, intrinsic intentionality) or that these conditions are not truly necessary, often relying on anti-discriminatory arguments comparing LLMs to diverse human capacities. Our approach is evidential, not functionalist, and deliberately excludes consciousness. We conclude by speculating on the possibility of LLMs possessing 'alien' contents beyond human conceptual schemes.

Related papers

• Automatic Curriculum Expert Iteration for Reliable LLM Reasoning [60.60318625779015]
  Hallucinations (i.e., generating plausible but inaccurate content) and laziness (i.e. excessive refusals or defaulting to "I don't know") persist as major challenges in LLM reasoning.<n>Current efforts to reduce hallucinations primarily focus on factual errors in knowledge-grounded tasks, often neglecting hallucinations related to faulty reasoning.<n>We propose Automatic Curriculum Expert Iteration (Auto-CEI) to enhance LLM reasoning and align responses to the model's capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T05:43:07Z)
• What's in an embedding? Would a rose by any embedding smell as sweet? [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are often criticized for lacking true "understanding" and the ability to "reason" with their knowledge. We suggest that LLMs do develop a kind of empirical "understanding" that is "geometry"-like, which seems adequate for a range of applications in NLP. To overcome these limitations, we suggest that LLMs should be integrated with an "algebraic" representation of knowledge that includes symbolic AI elements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T01:10:40Z)
• Can a Hallucinating Model help in Reducing Human "Hallucination"? [2.3633885460047774]
  This study explores the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) vis-a-vis the average human in detecting prevalent logical pitfalls. We propose methodologies for harnessing LLMs to counter misconceptions, drawing upon psychological models of persuasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T20:10:44Z)
• Should We Fear Large Language Models? A Structural Analysis of the Human Reasoning System for Elucidating LLM Capabilities and Risks Through the Lens of Heidegger's Philosophy [0.0]
  This study investigates the capabilities and risks of Large Language Models (LLMs) It uses the innovative parallels between the statistical patterns of word relationships within LLMs and Martin Heidegger's concepts of "ready-to-hand" and "present-at-hand" Our findings reveal that while LLMs possess the capability for Direct Explicative Reasoning and Pseudo Rational Reasoning, they fall short in authentic rational reasoning and have no creative reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T19:40:53Z)
• Logical Closed Loop: Uncovering Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models [52.957842999317506]
  Object hallucination refers to the phenomenon that the LVLMs claim non-existent objects in the image. We propose a Logical Closed Loop-based framework for Object Hallucination Detection and Mitigation, namely LogicCheckGPT. As a plug-and-play method, it can be seamlessly applied to all existing LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T15:28:39Z)
• Deceptive Semantic Shortcuts on Reasoning Chains: How Far Can Models Go without Hallucination? [73.454943870226]
  This work studies a specific type of hallucination induced by semantic associations. To quantify this phenomenon, we propose a novel probing method and benchmark called EureQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:27:36Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• 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)
• Avalon's Game of Thoughts: Battle Against Deception through Recursive Contemplation [80.126717170151]
  This study utilizes the intricate Avalon game as a testbed to explore LLMs' potential in deceptive environments. We introduce a novel framework, Recursive Contemplation (ReCon), to enhance LLMs' ability to identify and counteract deceptive information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T16:27:36Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)
• Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate [19.887103433032774]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in complex reasoning tasks. This work explores testing LLMs' reasoning by engaging with them in a debate-like conversation. We find that despite their impressive performance, LLMs like ChatGPT cannot maintain their beliefs in truth for a significant portion of examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:47:31Z)

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.