Can AI Rely on the Systematicity of Truth? The Challenge of Modelling Normative Domains

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09676v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 15:23:31 GMT
• Title: Can AI Rely on the Systematicity of Truth? The Challenge of Modelling Normative Domains
• Authors: Matthieu Queloz,
• Abstract summary: A key assumption fuelling optimism about the progress of large language models is that the truth is systematic.<n> philosophers have identified compelling reasons to doubt that the truth is systematic across all domains of thought.<n>I argue that insofar as the truth in normative domains is asystematic, this renders it correspondingly harder for LLMs to make progress.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: A key assumption fuelling optimism about the progress of large language models (LLMs) in accurately and comprehensively modelling the world is that the truth is systematic: true statements about the world form a whole that is not just consistent, in that it contains no contradictions, but coherent, in that the truths are inferentially interlinked. This holds out the prospect that LLMs might in principle rely on that systematicity to fill in gaps and correct inaccuracies in the training data: consistency and coherence promise to facilitate progress towards comprehensiveness in an LLM's representation of the world. However, philosophers have identified compelling reasons to doubt that the truth is systematic across all domains of thought, arguing that in normative domains, in particular, the truth is largely asystematic. I argue that insofar as the truth in normative domains is asystematic, this renders it correspondingly harder for LLMs to make progress, because they cannot then leverage the systematicity of truth. And the less LLMs can rely on the systematicity of truth, the less we can rely on them to do our practical deliberation for us, because the very asystematicity of normative domains requires human agency to play a greater role in practical thought.

Related papers

• Machine Bullshit: Characterizing the Emergent Disregard for Truth in Large Language Models [57.834711966432685]
  Bullshit, as conceptualized by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, refers to statements made without regard to their truth value.<n>We introduce the Bullshit Index, a novel metric quantifying large language model's indifference to truth.<n>We observe prevalent machine bullshit in political contexts, with weasel words as the dominant strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T07:11:57Z)
• Beyond Statistical Learning: Exact Learning Is Essential for General Intelligence [59.07578850674114]
  Sound deductive reasoning is an indisputably desirable aspect of general intelligence.<n>It is well-documented that even the most advanced frontier systems regularly and consistently falter on easily-solvable reasoning tasks.<n>We argue that their unsound behavior is a consequence of the statistical learning approach powering their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T14:37:50Z)
• Computational Thinking Reasoning in Large Language Models [69.28428524878885]
  Computational Thinking Model (CTM) is a novel framework that incorporates computational thinking paradigms into large language models (LLMs)<n>Live code execution is seamlessly integrated into the reasoning process, allowing CTM to think by computing.<n>CTM outperforms conventional reasoning models and tool-augmented baselines in terms of accuracy, interpretability, and generalizability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:11:15Z)
• Truly Assessing Fluid Intelligence of Large Language Models through Dynamic Reasoning Evaluation [75.26829371493189]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capacities that mirror human-like thinking.<n>Existing reasoning benchmarks either focus on domain-specific knowledge (crystallized intelligence) or lack interpretability.<n>We propose DRE-Bench, a dynamic reasoning evaluation benchmark grounded in a hierarchical cognitive framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:01:08Z)
• Probing the Geometry of Truth: Consistency and Generalization of Truth Directions in LLMs Across Logical Transformations and Question Answering Tasks [31.379237532476875]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) encode truthfulness as a distinct linear feature, termed the "truth direction"<n>Our findings reveal that not all LLMs exhibit consistent truth directions, with stronger representations observed in more capable models.<n>We show that truthfulness probes trained on declarative atomic statements can generalize effectively to logical transformations, question-answering tasks, in-context learning, and external knowledge sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T03:55:53Z)
• RuleArena: A Benchmark for Rule-Guided Reasoning with LLMs in Real-World Scenarios [58.90106984375913]
  RuleArena is a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning.<n> Covering three practical domains -- airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations -- RuleArena assesses LLMs' proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T06:08:46Z)
• AI-LieDar: Examine the Trade-off Between Utility and Truthfulness in LLM Agents [27.10147264744531]
  We study how Large Language Models (LLM)-based agents navigate scenarios in a multi-turn interactive setting.<n>We develop a truthfulness detector inspired by psychological literature to assess the agents' responses.<n>Our experiment demonstrates that all models are truthful less than 50% of the time, though truthfulness and goal achievement (utility) rates vary across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T17:41:12Z)
• Logically Consistent Language Models via Neuro-Symbolic Integration [14.317886666902822]
  Large language models (LLMs) are a promising venue for natural language understanding and generation. LLMs are prone to generating non-factual information and to contradicting themselves when prompted to reason about relations between entities of the world. We introduce a loss based on neuro-symbolic reasoning that teaches an LLM to be logically consistent with an external set of facts and rules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T10:52:57Z)
• The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [17.812295963158714]
  We analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks and find inherent challenges in each that make the development of a fair language model intractable.<n>We show that each framework either does not extend to the general-purpose AI context or is infeasible in practice.<n>These inherent challenges would persist for general-purpose AI, including LLMs, even if empirical challenges, such as limited participatory input and limited measurement methods, were overcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z)
• A Survey on Large Language Models for Critical Societal Domains: Finance, Healthcare, and Law [65.87885628115946]
  Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing the landscapes of finance, healthcare, and law. We highlight the instrumental role of LLMs in enhancing diagnostic and treatment methodologies in healthcare, innovating financial analytics, and refining legal interpretation and compliance strategies. We critically examine the ethics for LLM applications in these fields, pointing out the existing ethical concerns and the need for transparent, fair, and robust AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T22:43:02Z)
• Towards Logically Consistent Language Models via Probabilistic Reasoning [14.317886666902822]
  Large language models (LLMs) are a promising venue for natural language understanding and generation tasks. LLMs are prone to generate non-factual information and to contradict themselves when prompted to reason about beliefs of the world. We introduce a training objective that teaches a LLM to be consistent with external knowledge in the form of a set of facts and rules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T12:23:57Z)
• Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models [0.0]
  We discuss the struggle for truth in AI systems and the general responses to date. It then investigates the production of truth in InstructGPT, a large language model. We argue that these same logics and inconsistencies play out in ChatGPT, reiterating truth as a non-trivial problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-28T02:47:50Z)

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.