Deflating Deflationism: A Critical Perspective on Debunking Arguments Against LLM Mentality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13403v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:17:11 GMT
• Title: Deflating Deflationism: A Critical Perspective on Debunking Arguments Against LLM Mentality
• Abstract summary: We argue that folk practice provides a defeasible basis for attributing mental states and capacities to LLMs.<n>We find that neither strategy provides a knock-down case against ascriptions of mentality to LLMs simpliciter.
• Score: 0.12041807591122715
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Many people feel compelled to interpret, describe, and respond to Large Language Models (LLMs) as if they possess inner mental lives similar to our own. Responses to this phenomenon have varied. Inflationists hold that at least some folk psychological ascriptions to LLMs are warranted. Deflationists argue that all such attributions of mentality to LLMs are misplaced, often cautioning against the risk that anthropomorphic projection may lead to misplaced trust or potentially even confusion about the moral status of LLMs. We advance this debate by assessing two common deflationary arguments against LLM mentality. What we term the 'robustness strategy' aims to undercut one justification for believing that LLMs are minded entities by showing that putatively cognitive and humanlike behaviours are not robust, failing to generalise appropriately. What we term the 'etiological strategy' undercuts attributions of mentality by challenging naive causal explanations of LLM behaviours, offering alternative causal accounts that weaken the case for mental state attributions. While both strategies offer powerful challenges to full-blown inflationism, we find that neither strategy provides a knock-down case against ascriptions of mentality to LLMs simpliciter. With this in mind, we explore a modest form of inflationism that permits ascriptions of mentality to LLMs under certain conditions. Specifically, we argue that folk practice provides a defeasible basis for attributing mental states and capacities to LLMs provided those mental states and capacities can be understood in metaphysically undemanding terms (e.g. knowledge, beliefs and desires), while greater caution is required when attributing metaphysically demanding mental phenomena such as phenomenal consciousness.

Related papers

• Truth or Sophistry? LoFa: A Benchmark for LLM Robustness Against Logical Fallacies [51.39569894108518]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong semantic capabilities, yet their resilience to manipulative linguistic patterns such as logical fallacies remains underexplored.<n>We introduce LoFa (Logical Fallacy), a benchmark for evaluating LLM robustness against fallacies.<n>We also propose Logical Fallacy Resistance at k (LFR@k), a metric that quantifies resistance to fallacious attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T02:17:45Z)
• Tackling the Root of Misinformation by Teaching Laypeople about Logical Fallacies via Socratic Questioning and Critical Argumentation [49.177047539037]
  We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses Large Language Models to tutor laypeople and help them learn about logical fallacies.<n>Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs.<n>This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-31T05:24:57Z)
• LLMs Should Incorporate Explicit Mechanisms for Human Empathy [13.775684943160963]
  This paper argues that Large Language Models (LLMs) should incorporate explicit mechanisms for human empathy.<n>We formalize empathy as an observable behavioral property: the capacity to model and respond to human perspectives while preserving intention, affect, and context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T10:00:34Z)
• Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy [62.927670321859495]
  LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment.<n>We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs.<n>Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T14:15:43Z)
• Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts [79.1081247754018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T14:46:35Z)
• Corrupted by Reasoning: Reasoning Language Models Become Free-Riders in Public Goods Games [87.5673042805229]
  How large language models balance self-interest and collective well-being is a critical challenge for ensuring alignment, robustness, and safe deployment.<n>We adapt a public goods game with institutional choice from behavioral economics, allowing us to observe how different LLMs navigate social dilemmas.<n>Surprisingly, we find that reasoning LLMs, such as the o1 series, struggle significantly with cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T15:02:47Z)
• Unveiling Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models: Reality or Mirage? [62.17959154852391]
  Causal reasoning capability is critical in advancing large language models toward strong artificial intelligence.<n>We show that large language models (LLMs) are only capable of performing shallow (level-1) causal reasoning.<n>We propose G2-Reasoner, a method that incorporates general knowledge and goal-oriented prompts into LLMs' causal reasoning processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-26T13:11:01Z)
• Going Whole Hog: A Philosophical Defense of AI Cognition [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T11:36:25Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation [66.01754585188739]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T04:57:19Z)
• Rethinking Large Language Models in Mental Health Applications [42.21805311812548]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become valuable assets in mental health. This paper offers a perspective on using LLMs in mental health applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-19T08:40:01Z)
• 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)
• Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining artificial intelligence (AI) systems with human communication and everyday life. This study reveals that such strategies emerged in state-of-the-art LLMs, such as GPT-4, but were non-existent in earlier LLMs. We conduct a series of experiments showing that state-of-the-art LLMs are able to understand and induce false beliefs in other agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T09:27:01Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

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.