LLMorphism: When humans come to see themselves as language models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.05419v1
• Date: Wed, 06 May 2026 20:27:15 GMT
• Title: LLMorphism: When humans come to see themselves as language models
• Abstract summary: I argue that the rise of conversational LLMs may make this bias increasingly psychologically available.<n>I distinguish LLMorphism from mechanomorphism, anthropomorphism, computationalism, dehumanization, objectification, and predictive-processing theories of mind.<n>I conclude that the issue is not only whether we are attributing too much mind to machines, but also whether we are beginning to attribute too little mind to humans.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMorphism is the biased belief that human cognition works like a large language model. I argue that the rise of conversational LLMs may make this bias increasingly psychologically available. When artificial systems produce human-like language, people may draw a reverse inference: if LLMs can speak like humans, perhaps humans think like LLMs. This inference is biased because similarity at the level of linguistic output does not imply similarity in cognitive architecture. Yet, LLMorphism may spread through two mechanisms: analogical transfer, whereby features of LLMs are projected onto humans, and metaphorical availability, whereby LLM vocabulary becomes a culturally salient vocabulary for describing thought. I distinguish LLMorphism from mechanomorphism, anthropomorphism, computationalism, dehumanization, objectification, and predictive-processing theories of mind. I outline its implications for work, education, responsibility, healthcare, communication, creativity, and human dignity, while also discussing boundary conditions and forms of resistance. I conclude that the public debate may be missing half of the problem: the issue is not only whether we are attributing too much mind to machines, but also whether we are beginning to attribute too little mind to humans.

Related papers

• What's it like to be a chat? On the co-simulation of artificial minds in human-AI conversations [0.21395484249169072]
  Illusionists say characters are merely anthropomorphic projections in the mind of the user.<n>We argue for a realist position on which characters exist as minded and psychologically continuous entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T14:17:05Z)
• XToM: Exploring the Multilingual Theory of Mind for Large Language Models [57.9821865189077]
  Existing evaluations of Theory of Mind in LLMs are largely limited to English.<n>We present XToM, a rigorously validated multilingual benchmark that evaluates ToM across five languages.<n>Our findings expose limitations in LLMs' ability to replicate human-like mentalizing across linguistic contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T05:23:25Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Non-literal Understanding of Number Words by Language Models [33.24263583093367]
  Humans naturally interpret numbers non-literally, combining context, world knowledge, and speaker intent.<n>We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) interpret numbers similarly, focusing on hyperbole and pragmatic halo effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T07:03:00Z)
• Do Large Language Models Advocate for Inferentialism? [0.0]
  The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Claude presents new challenges for philosophy of language.<n>This paper explores Robert Brandom's inferential semantics as an alternative foundational framework for understanding these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T03:48:40Z)
• Active Use of Latent Constituency Representation in both Humans and Large Language Models [9.995581737621505]
  We show that a latent tree-structured constituency representation can emerge in both the human brain and large language models. Results demonstrate that a latent tree-structured constituency representation can emerge in both the human brain and LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T14:50:22Z)
• Do Large Language Models Mirror Cognitive Language Processing? [43.68923267228057]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable abilities in text comprehension and logical reasoning.<n>Brain cognitive processing signals are typically utilized to study human language processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T03:38:20Z)
• Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [59.100552839650774]
  We systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing.<n>We identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense.<n>Our results show that fine-tuning LMs on these domains can improve their alignment with human brain responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T19:02:40Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• 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)
• The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs [50.32802502923367]
  We study the process of language driving and influencing social reasoning in a probabilistic goal inference domain. We propose a neuro-symbolic model that carries out goal inference from linguistic inputs of agent scenarios. Our model closely matches human response patterns and better predicts human judgements than using an LLM alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-25T19:38:01Z)
• 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)

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.