Does It Make Sense to Speak of Introspection in Large Language Models?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05068v2
• Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 11:26:38 GMT
• Title: Does It Make Sense to Speak of Introspection in Large Language Models?
• Authors: Iulia M. Comsa, Murray Shanahan,
• Abstract summary: We present and critique two examples of apparent introspective self-report from large language models.<n>In humans, such reports are often attributed to a faculty of introspection and are typically linked to consciousness.
• Score: 11.941576364484586
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit compelling linguistic behaviour, and sometimes offer self-reports, that is to say statements about their own nature, inner workings, or behaviour. In humans, such reports are often attributed to a faculty of introspection and are typically linked to consciousness. This raises the question of how to interpret self-reports produced by LLMs, given their increasing linguistic fluency and cognitive capabilities. To what extent (if any) can the concept of introspection be meaningfully applied to LLMs? Here, we present and critique two examples of apparent introspective self-report from LLMs. In the first example, an LLM attempts to describe the process behind its own "creative" writing, and we argue this is not a valid example of introspection. In the second example, an LLM correctly infers the value of its own temperature parameter, and we argue that this can be legitimately considered a minimal example of introspection, albeit one that is (presumably) not accompanied by conscious experience.

Related papers

• How LLMs Comprehend Temporal Meaning in Narratives: A Case Study in Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs [13.822169295436177]
  We investigate how large language models (LLMs) process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies.<n>Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect.<n>These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T18:28:35Z)
• On the Thinking-Language Modeling Gap in Large Language Models [68.83670974539108]
  We show that there is a significant gap between the modeling of languages and thoughts.<n>We propose a new prompt technique termed Language-of-Thoughts (LoT) to demonstrate and alleviate this gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T09:31:52Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• The Essence of Contextual Understanding in Theory of Mind: A Study on Question Answering with Story Characters [67.61587661660852]
  Theory-of-Mind (ToM) allows humans to understand and interpret the mental states of others.<n>In this paper, we verify the importance of comprehensive contextual understanding about personal backgrounds in ToM.<n>We introduce CharToM benchmark, comprising 1,035 ToM questions based on characters from classic novels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T09:04:45Z)
• 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.<n>Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts.<n>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)
• Delving into the Reversal Curse: How Far Can Large Language Models Generalize? [40.64539467276017]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit limitations when facing seemingly trivial tasks. A prime example is the recently debated "reversal curse", which surfaces when models, having been trained on the fact "A is B", struggle to generalize this knowledge to infer that "B is A"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T14:55:09Z)
• 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)
• Does ChatGPT Have a Mind? [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T00:21:16Z)
• Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
  Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation. We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z)
• How do Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts between Honesty and Helpfulness? [14.706111954807021]
  We use psychological models and experiments designed to characterize human behavior to analyze large language models. We find that reinforcement learning from human feedback improves both honesty and helpfulness. GPT-4 Turbo demonstrates human-like response patterns including sensitivity to the conversational framing and listener's decision context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T19:13:26Z)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanations [14.685170467182369]
  Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have demonstrated superior performance on a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Since these models are instruction-tuned on human conversations to produce "helpful" responses, they can and often will produce explanations along with the response.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T12:34:32Z)

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.