Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT or Google’s Bard have shown significant performance on a variety of text-based tasks, such as summarization, translation, and even the generation of new...

Large language models (LLMs) have now entered the realm of medical ethics. In a recent study, Balaset alexamined the performance of GPT-4, a commercially available LLM, assessing its performance in generating responses to diverse medical ethics cases. Their findings reveal that GPT-4 demonstrates an ability to identify and articulate complex medical ethical issues, although its proficiency in encoding the depth of real-world ethical dilemmas remains an avenue for improvement. Investigating the integration of LLMs into medical ethics decision-making appears to (...) be an interesting avenue of research. However, despite the promising trajectory of LLM technology in medicine, it is crucial to exercise caution and refrain from attributing their expertise to medical ethics. Our thesis follows an examination of the nature of expertise and the epistemic limitations that affect LLM technology. As a result, we propose two more fitting applications of LLMs in medical ethics: first, as tools for mining electronic health records or scientific literature, thereby supplementing evidence for resolving medical ethics cases, and second, as educational platforms to foster ethical reflection and critical thinking skills among students and residents. The integration of LLMs in medical ethics, while promising, requires careful consideration of their epistemic limitations. Consequently, a well-considered definition of their role in ethically sensitive decision-making is crucial. (shrink)

Today, large language models are very powerful, informational and analytical tools that significantly accelerate most of the existing methods and methodologies for processing informational processes. Scientific information is of particular importance in this capacity, which gradually involves the power of large language models. This interaction of science and qualitative new opportunities for working with information lead us to new, unique scientific discoveries, their great quantitative diversity. There is an acceleration of scientific research, a reduction in the time spent (...) on its implementation – the freed up time can be spent both on solving new scientific problems and on scientific creativity, which, although it may not necessarily lead to a specific solution to a particular scientific problem, but is able to demonstrate the beauty of science in various disciplinary areas. As a result, the interaction of large language models and scientific information is at the same time a research for solutions to scientific problems, scientific problems, and scientific creativity. Solving scientific problems requires the ability to efficiently process big data, which cannot be done without an effective method – one of the significant methods was the Transformer architecture, introduced in 2017 and comprehensively integrated into the GPT‑3 model, which, as of September 2020, was the largest and most advanced language model in the world. Therefore, GPT‑3 can be called the basis of most scientific developments carried out in the context of using large language models. The interaction of science and large language models has become a factor in the emergence of a large number of questions, among which are: «Is the result of data analysis new knowledge?», «What are the prospects for scientific creativity in the era of big computing?». Currently, these issues are extremely important, because they allow us to develop the foundations for effective human‑computer interaction. Therefore, this study analyzes the issues presented. (shrink)

In the target article, Porsdam Mann and colleagues (2023) broadly survey the ethical opportunities and risks of using general and personalized large language models (LLMs) to generate academic pros...

Large Language Models (LLMs) could be a useful tool for lawyers. However, empirical research on their effectiveness in conducting legal tasks is scant. We study securities cases involving cryptocurrencies as one of numerous contexts where AI could support the legal process, studying GPT-3.5’s legal reasoning and ChatGPT’s legal drafting capabilities. We examine whether a) GPT-3.5 can accurately determine which laws are potentially being violated from a fact pattern, and b) whether there is a difference in juror decision-making based on (...) complaints written by a lawyer compared to ChatGPT. We feed fact patterns from real-life cases to GPT-3.5 and evaluate its ability to determine correct potential violations from the scenario and exclude spurious violations. Second, we had mock jurors assess complaints written by ChatGPT and lawyers. GPT-3.5’s legal reasoning skills proved weak, though we expect improvement in future models, particularly given the violations it suggested tended to be correct (it merely missed additional, correct violations). ChatGPT performed better at legal drafting, and jurors’ decisions were not statistically significantly associated with the author of the document upon which they based their decisions. Because GPT-3.5 cannot satisfactorily conduct legal reasoning tasks, it would be unlikely to be able to help lawyers in a meaningful way at this stage. However, ChatGPT’s drafting skills (though, perhaps, still inferior to lawyers) could assist lawyers in providing legal services. Our research is the first to systematically study an LLM’s legal drafting and reasoning capabilities in litigation, as well as in securities law and cryptocurrency-related misconduct. (shrink)

Current work in language models (LMs) helps us speed up or even skip thinking by accelerating and automating cognitive work. But can LMs help us with critical thinking -- thinking in deeper, more reflective ways which challenge assumptions, clarify ideas, and engineer new concepts? We treat philosophy as a case study in critical thinking, and interview 21 professional philosophers about how they engage in critical thinking and on their experiences with LMs. We find that philosophers do not find LMs (...) to be useful because they lack a sense of selfhood (memory, beliefs, consistency) and initiative (curiosity, proactivity). We propose the selfhood-initiative model for critical thinking tools to characterize this gap. Using the model, we formulate three roles LMs could play as critical thinking tools: the Interlocutor, the Monitor, and the Respondent. We hope that our work inspires LM researchers to further develop LMs as critical thinking tools and philosophers and other 'critical thinkers' to imagine intellectually substantive uses of LMs. (shrink)

This article sets in with the question whether current or foreseeable transformer-based large language models (LLMs), such as the ones powering OpenAI’s ChatGPT, could be language users in a way comparable to humans. It answers the question negatively, presenting the following argument. Apart from niche uses, to use language means to act. But LLMs are unable to act because they lack intentions. This, in turn, is because they are the wrong kind of being: agents with intentions need (...) to be autonomous organisms while LLMs are heteronomous mechanisms. To conclude, the article argues, based on structural aspects of transformer-based LLMs, that these LLMs have taken a first step away from mechanistic artificiality to autonomous self-constitution, which means that these models are (slowly) moving into a direction that someday might result in non-human, but equally non-artificial agents, thus subverting the time-honored Kantian distinction between organism and mechanism. (shrink)

This letter explores the intricate historical and contemporary links between large language models (LLMs) and cognitive science through the lens of information theory, statistical language models, and socioanthropological linguistic theories. The emergence of LLMs highlights the enduring significance of information‐based and statistical learning theories in understanding human communication. These theories, initially proposed in the mid‐20th century, offered a visionary framework for integrating computational science, social sciences, and humanities, which nonetheless was not fully fulfilled at that time. The subsequent (...) development of sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, especially since the 1970s, provided critical perspectives and empirical methods that both challenged and enriched this framework. This letter proposes that two pivotal concepts derived from this development, metapragmatic function and indexicality, offer a fruitful theoretical perspective for integrating the semantic, textual, and pragmatic, contextual dimensions of communication, an amalgamation that contemporary LLMs have yet to fully achieve. The author believes that contemporary cognitive science is at a crucial crossroads, where fostering interdisciplinary dialogues among computational linguistics, social linguistics and linguistic anthropology, and cognitive and social psychology is in particular imperative. Such collaboration is vital to bridge the computational, cognitive, and sociocultural aspects of human communication and human−AI interaction, especially in the era of large language and multimodal models and human‐centric Artificial Intelligence (AI). (shrink)

To what degree can language be acquired from linguistic input alone? This question has vexed scholars for millennia and is still a major focus of debate in the cognitive science of language. The complexity of human language has hampered progress because studies of language–especially those involving computational modeling–have only been able to deal with small fragments of our linguistic skills. We suggest that the most recent generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) might finally provide the (...) computational tools to determine empirically how much of the human language ability can be acquired from linguistic experience. LLMs are sophisticated deep learning architectures trained on vast amounts of natural language data, enabling them to perform an impressive range of linguistic tasks. We argue that, despite their clear semantic and pragmatic limitations, LLMs have already demonstrated that human-like grammatical language can be acquired without the need for a built-in grammar. Thus, while there is still much to learn about how humans acquire and use language, LLMs provide full-fledged computational models for cognitive scientists to empirically evaluate just how far statistical learning might take us in explaining the full complexity of human language. (shrink)

We discuss potential biorisks from large language models (LLMs). AI assistants based on LLMs such as ChatGPT have been shown to significantly reduce barriers to entry for actors wishing to synthesize dangerous, potentially novel pathogens and chemical weapons. The harms from deploying such bioagents could be further magnified by AI-assisted misinformation. We endorse several policy responses to these dangers, including prerelease evaluations of biomedical AIs by subject-matter experts, enhanced surveillance and lab screening procedures, restrictions on AI training data, and (...) access controls on biomedical AI. We conclude with a suggestion about future research directions in bioethics. (shrink)

We propose leveraging cognitive science research on emotions and communication to improve language models for emotion analysis. First, we present the main emotion theories in psychology and cognitive science. Then, we introduce the main methods of emotion annotation in natural language processing and their connections to psychological theories. We also present the two main types of analyses of emotional communication in cognitive pragmatics. Finally, based on the cognitive science research presented, we propose directions for improving language models (...) for emotion analysis. We suggest that these research efforts pave the way for constructing new annotation schemes, methods, and a possible benchmark for emotional understanding, considering different facets of human emotion and communication. (shrink)

How does our language relate to reality? This is a question that is especially pertinent in set theory, where we seem to talk of large infinite entities. Based on an analogy with the use of models in the natural sciences, we argue for a threefold correspondence between our language, models, and reality. We argue that so conceived, the existence of models can be underwritten by a weak notion of existence, where weak existence is to be understood as existing (...) in virtue of language. (shrink)

Despite the exceptional performance of large language models (LLMs) on a wide range of tasks involving natural language processing and reasoning, there has been sharp disagreement as to whether their abilities extend to more creative human abilities. A core example is the interpretation of novel metaphors. Here we assessed the ability of GPT-4, a state-of-the-art large language model, to provide natural-language interpretations of a recent AI benchmark (Fig-QA dataset), novel literary metaphors drawn from Serbian poetry (...) and translated into English, and entire novel English poems. GPT-4 outperformed previous AI models on the Fig-QA dataset. For metaphors drawn from Serbian poetry, human judges – blind to the fact that an AI model was involved – rated metaphor interpretations generated by GPT-4 as superior to those provided by a group of college students. In interpreting reversed metaphors, GPT-4, as well as humans, exhibited signs of sensitivity to the Gricean cooperative principle. In addition, for several novel English poems GPT-4 produced interpretations that were rated as excellent or good by a human literary critic. These results indicate that LLMs such as GPT-4 have acquired an emergent ability to interpret literary metaphors, including those embedded in novel poems. (shrink)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been transformative. They are pre-trained foundational models that are self-supervised and can be adapted with fine tuning to a wide range of natural language tasks, each of which previously would have required a separate network model. This is one step closer to the extraordinary versatility of human language. GPT-3 and more recently LaMDA can carry on dialogs with humans on many topics after minimal priming with a few examples. However, there has (...) been a wide range of reactions and debate on whether these LLMs understand what they are saying or exhibit signs of intelligence. This high variance is exhibited in three interviews with LLMs reaching wildly different conclusions. A new possibility was uncovered that could explain this divergence. What appears to be intelligence in LLMs may in fact be a mirror that reflects the intelligence of the interviewer, a remarkable twist that could be considered a Reverse Turing Test. If so, then by studying interviews we may be learning more about the intelligence and beliefs of the interviewer than the intelligence of the LLMs. As LLMs become more capable they may transform the way we interact with machines and how they interact with each other. Increasingly, LLMs are being coupled with sensorimotor devices. LLMs can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk? A road map for achieving artificial general autonomy is outlined with seven major improvements inspired by brain systems. LLMs could be used to uncover new insights into brain function by downloading brain data during natural behaviors. (shrink)

Abstract The explosion of interest in large language models (LLMs) has been accompanied by concerns over the extent to which generated outputs can be trusted, owing to the prevalence of bias, hallucinations, and so forth. Accordingly, there is a growing interest in the use of ontologies and knowledge graphs to make LLMs more trustworthy. This rests on the long history of ontologies and knowledge graphs in constructing human-comprehensible justification for model outputs as well as traceability concerning the impact (...) of evidence on other evidence. Understanding the nature of arguments and argumentation is critical to each, especially when LLM output conflicts with what is expected by users. The central contribution of this article is to extend the Arguments Ontology (ARGO) - an ontology specific to the domain of argumentation and evidence broadly construed - into the space of LLM fact-checking in the interest of promoting justification and traceability research through the use of ARGO-based ‘blueprints’. (shrink)

Do large language models like Chat-GPT or Claude meaningfully use the words they produce? Or are they merely clever prediction machines, simulating language use by producing statistically plausible text? There have already been some initial attempts to answer this question by showing that these models meet the criteria for entering meaningful states according to metasemantic theories of mental content. In this paper, I will argue for a different approach—that we should instead consider whether language models meet the (...) criteria given by our best metasemantic theories of linguistic content. In that vein, I will illustrate how this can be done by applying two such theories to the case of language models: Gareth Evans’ ( 1982 ) account of naming practices and Ruth Millikan’s ( 1984, 2004, 2005 ) teleosemantics. In doing so, I will argue that it is a mistake to think that the failure of LLMs to meet plausible conditions for mental intentionality thereby renders their outputs meaningless, and that a distinguishing feature of linguistic intentionality—dependency on a pre-existing linguistic system—allows for the plausible result that LLM outputs are meaningful. (shrink)

Are LLMs cultural technologies like photocopiers or printing presses, which transmit information but cannot create new content? A challenge for this idea, which we call bibliotechnism, is that LLMs generate novel text. We begin with a defense of bibliotechnism, showing how even novel text may inherit its meaning from original human-generated text. We then argue that bibliotechnism faces an independent challenge from examples in which LLMs generate novel reference, using new names to refer to new entities. Such examples could be (...) explained if LLMs were not cultural technologies but had beliefs, desires, and intentions. According to interpretationism in the philosophy of mind, a system has such attitudes if and only if its behavior is well explained by the hypothesis that it does. Interpretationists may hold that LLMs have attitudes, and thus have a simple solution to the novel reference problem. We emphasize, however, that interpretationism is compatible with very simple creatures having attitudes and differs sharply from views that presuppose these attitudes require onsciousness, sentience, or intelligence (topics about which we make no claims). (shrink)

[This is an edited version of a keynote talk at the conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) on November 28, 2022, with some minor additions and subtractions.] -/- There has recently been widespread discussion of whether large language models might be sentient or conscious. Should we take this idea seriously? I will break down the strongest reasons for and against. Given mainstream assumptions in the science of consciousness, there are significant obstacles to consciousness in current models: for example, (...) their lack of recurrent processing, a global workspace, and unified agency. At the same time, it is quite possible that these obstacles will be overcome in the next decade or so. I conclude that while it is somewhat unlikely that current large language models are conscious, we should take seriously the possibility that successors to large language models may be conscious in the not-too-distant future. (shrink)

Can large language models produce expert‐quality philosophical texts? To investigate this, we fine‐tuned GPT‐3 with the works of philosopher Daniel Dennett. To evaluate the model, we asked the real Dennett 10 philosophical questions and then posed the same questions to the language model, collecting four responses for each question without cherry‐picking. Experts on Dennett's work succeeded at distinguishing the Dennett‐generated and machine‐generated answers above chance but substantially short of our expectations. Philosophy blog readers performed similarly to (...) the experts, while ordinary research participants were near chance distinguishing GPT‐3's responses from those of an “actual human philosopher”. (shrink)

In a recent letter, Dillion et. al (2023) make various suggestions regarding the idea of artificially intelligent systems, such as large language models, replacing human subjects in empirical moral psychology. We argue that human subjects are in various ways indispensable.

Wittgenstein’s ideas are a common ground for developers of Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems and linguists working on Language Acquisition and Mastery (LAM) models (Mills 1993; Lowney, Levy, Meroney and Gayler 2020; Skelac and Jandrić 2020). In recent years, we have witnessed a fast development of NLP systems capable of performing tasks as never before. NLP and LAM have been implemented based on deep learning neural networks, which learn concepts representation from rough data, but are nonetheless very effective (...) in tasks such as question answering, textual entailment, and translation (Devlin et al. 2019; Kitaev, Cao and Klein 2019; Wang et al. 2019). In this paper, I will debate some Wittgensteinian concepts that impact the architectures of many NLP deep-learning systems. I will focus, in particular, on the attempt to build a specific kind of architecture to model a private language. The discussion, I think, helps extract philosophical assumptions leading the research and development of AI systems capable of language modelling. In this paper, I will address some of the main features of NLP systems2 used for word embedding and one proposal to manipulate through a neural network a form of private language (Lawney et al. 2020). In §2, I will reconstruct the complex path of the private language argument (PLA). In §3, I will discuss connectivist language models and introduce notions about NPL systems' architecture. An overview of this kind of model is helpful to introduce the work of Lowney, Levy, Meroney and Gayler (2020). They submit that their model can respond to the issues raised by Wittgenstein in the notorious Private Language Argument (PLA). This argument unexpectedly turned out to be relevant not only for the philosophy of language but also for NLP and LAM modellers. I will describe the language game concept in NLP, how it is embedded, and its role in inductive systems development. This central concept in Wittgenstein’s work is relevant to describe the role of context in understanding the meanings of words. In §4, I present the Wittgensteinian main concepts in play in the connectivist paradigm. I argue that the connectionist theoretical framework can better catch the dependency of word meaning on context. There seems to be a correlation between Wittgenstein's invitation to look, an invitation to dismiss the aim of theorizing about languages, and the absence of theory-ladenness in deep learning technologies involved in NLP. In §5, I criticize Lowney and colleagues’ claim, whose model does not successfully capture Wittgenstein’s Beetle in the Box case. Moreover, I argue that even if we can distinguish a strong and a weak definition of a private language, Wittgenstein’s argument also holds for deep-learning models, and his worries are still a good guide for NLP developers. (shrink)

Word co‐occurrence patterns in language corpora contain a surprising amount of conceptual knowledge. Large language models (LLMs), trained to predict words in context, leverage these patterns to achieve impressive performance on diverse semantic tasks requiring world knowledge. An important but understudied question about LLMs’ semantic abilities is whether they acquire generalized knowledge of common events. Here, we test whether five pretrained LLMs (from 2018's BERT to 2023's MPT) assign a higher likelihood to plausible descriptions of agent−patient interactions than (...) to minimally different implausible versions of the same event. Using three curated sets of minimal sentence pairs (total n = 1215), we found that pretrained LLMs possess substantial event knowledge, outperforming other distributional language models. In particular, they almost always assign a higher likelihood to possible versus impossible events (The teacher bought the laptop vs. The laptop bought the teacher). However, LLMs show less consistent preferences for likely versus unlikely events (The nanny tutored the boy vs. The boy tutored the nanny). In follow‐up analyses, we show that (i) LLM scores are driven by both plausibility and surface‐level sentence features, (ii) LLM scores generalize well across syntactic variants (active vs. passive constructions) but less well across semantic variants (synonymous sentences), (iii) some LLM errors mirror human judgment ambiguity, and (iv) sentence plausibility serves as an organizing dimension in internal LLM representations. Overall, our results show that important aspects of event knowledge naturally emerge from distributional linguistic patterns, but also highlight a gap between representations of possible/impossible and likely/unlikely events. (shrink)

Porsdam Mann and colleagues provide an overview of opportunities and risks associated with the use of personalized large language models (LLMs) for text production in bio)ethics (Porsdam Mann et al...

Newly powerful large language models have burst onto the scene, with applications across a wide range of functions. We can now expect to encounter their outputs at rapidly increasing volumes and frequencies. Some commentators claim that large language models are bullshitting, generating convincing output without regard for the truth. If correct, that would make large language models distinctively dangerous discourse participants. Bullshitters not only undermine the norm of truthfulness (by saying false things) but the normative status of (...) truth itself (by treating it as entirely irrelevant). So, do large language models really bullshit? I argue that they can, in the sense of issuing propositional content in response to fact-seeking prompts, without having first assessed that content for truth or falsity. However, I further argue that they need not bullshit, given appropriate guardrails. So, just as with human speakers, the propensity for a large language model to bullshit depends on its own particular make-up. (shrink)

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are opening up new areas of research and teaching potential across a variety of domains. The purpose of the present conceptual paper is to map this new terrain from the point of view of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). We demonstrate that the usage of LLMs raises concerns that definitely fall within the remit of CDS; among them, power and inequality. After an initial explanation of LLMs, we focus on three key areas of (...) reflection. The first is a general stock-taking, where we look at CDS’ theoretical underpinnings and what they imply for working with AI-generated language data. The second issue is authorship, where we assess the traceability of linguistic metadata and the ethically sensitive situation with regard to ownership of texts. The third area is linguistic homogenisation, where we examine how LLM usage privileges the mainstream. Afterwards, we explore ways in which LLMs could be used in research, and we discuss the implications of exploring their use in the classroom through a CDS lens. We close the paper with some observations on likely future developments in AI and how CDS can contribute with its distinctive theoretical, methodological and critical apparatus. (shrink)

Named entity recognition (NER) is a very relevant task for text information retrieval in natural language processing (NLP) problems. Most recent state-of-the-art NER methods require humans to annotate and provide useful data for model training. However, using human power to identify, circumscribe and label entities manually can be very expensive in terms of time, money, and effort. This paper investigates the use of prompt-based language models (OpenAI’s GPT-3) and weak supervision in the legal domain. We apply both (...) strategies as alternative approaches to the traditional human-based annotation method, relying on computer power instead human effort for labeling, and subsequently compare model performance between computer and human-generated data. We also introduce combinations of all three mentioned methods (prompt-based, weak supervision, and human annotation), aiming to find ways to maintain high model efficiency and low annotation costs. We showed that, despite human labeling still maintaining better overall performance results, the alternative strategies and their combinations presented themselves as valid options, displaying positive results and similar model scores at lower costs. Final results demonstrate preservation of human-trained models scores averaging 74.0% for GPT-3, 95.6% for weak supervision, 90.7% for GPT + weak supervision combination, and 83.9% for GPT + 30% human-labeling combination. (shrink)

In natural language understanding, a crucial goal is correctly interpreting open-textured phrases. In practice, disagreements over the meanings of open-textured phrases are often resolved through the generation and evaluation of interpretive arguments, arguments designed to support or attack a specific interpretation of an expression within a document. In this paper, we discuss some of our work towards the goal of automatically generating and evaluating interpretive arguments. We have curated a set of rules from the code of ethics of various (...) professional organizations and a set of associated scenarios that are ambiguous with respect to some open-textured phrase within the rule. We collected and evaluated arguments from both human annotators and state-of-the-art generative language models in order to determine the relative quality and persuasiveness of both sets of arguments. Finally, we performed a Turing test-inspired study in order to assess whether human annotators can tell the difference between human arguments and machine-generated arguments. The results show that machine-generated arguments, when prompted a certain way, can be consistently rated as more convincing than human-generated arguments, and to the untrained eye, the machine-generated arguments can convincingly sound human-like. (shrink)

Automatic summarization of legal case judgements, which are known to be long and complex, has traditionally been tried via extractive summarization models. In recent years, generative models including abstractive summarization models and Large language models (LLMs) have gained huge popularity. In this paper, we explore the applicability of such models for legal case judgement summarization. We applied various domain-specific abstractive summarization models and general-domain LLMs as well as extractive summarization models over two sets of legal case judgements – from (...) the United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court and the Indian Supreme Court – and evaluated the quality of the generated summaries. We also perform experiments on a third dataset of legal documents of a different type – Government reports from the United States. Results show that abstractive summarization models and LLMs generally perform better than the extractive methods as per traditional metrics for evaluating summary quality. However, detailed investigation shows the presence of inconsistencies and hallucinations in the outputs of the generative models, and we explore ways to reduce the hallucinations and inconsistencies in the summaries. Overall, the investigation suggests that further improvements are needed to enhance the reliability of abstractive models and LLMs for legal case judgement summarization. At present, a human-in-the-loop technique is more suitable for performing manual checks to identify inconsistencies in the generated summaries. (shrink)

Humans can attribute beliefs to others. However, it is unknown to what extent this ability results from an innate biological endowment or from experience accrued through child development, particularly exposure to language describing others' mental states. We test the viability of the language exposure hypothesis by assessing whether models exposed to large quantities of human language display sensitivity to the implied knowledge states of characters in written passages. In pre‐registered analyses, we present a linguistic version of the (...) False Belief Task to both human participants and a large language model, GPT‐3. Both are sensitive to others' beliefs, but while the language model significantly exceeds chance behavior, it does not perform as well as the humans nor does it explain the full extent of their behavior—despite being exposed to more language than a human would in a lifetime. This suggests that while statistical learning from language exposure may in part explain how humans develop the ability to reason about the mental states of others, other mechanisms are also responsible. (shrink)

What makes a word easy to learn? Early‐learned words are frequent and tend to name concrete referents. But words typically do not occur in isolation. Some words are predictable from their contexts; others are less so. Here, we investigate whether predictability relates to when children start producing different words (age of acquisition; AoA). We operationalized predictability in terms of a word's surprisal in child‐directed speech, computed using n‐gram and long‐short‐term‐memory (LSTM) language models. Predictability derived from LSTMs was generally a (...) better predictor than predictability derived from n‐gram models. Across five languages, average surprisal was positively correlated with the AoA of predicates and function words but not nouns. Controlling for concreteness and word frequency, more predictable predicates and function words were learned earlier. Differences in predictability between languages were associated with cross‐linguistic differences in AoA: the same word (when it was a predicate) was produced earlier in languages where the word was more predictable. (shrink)

In this research, patent prosecution is conceptualized as a system of reinforcement learning from human feedback. The objective of the system is to increase the likelihood for a language model to generate patent claims that have a higher chance of being granted. To showcase the controllability of the language model, the system learns from granted patents and pre-grant applications with different rewards. The status of “granted” and “pre-grant” are perceived as labeled human feedback implicitly. In addition, (...) specific to patent drafting, the experiments in this research demonstrate the model’s capability to learn from adjusting claim length and inclusion of limiting terms for narrowing claim scope. As proof of concept, the experiments focus on claim ones only and the training data originates from a patent dataset tailored specifically for artificial intelligence. Although the available human feedback in patent prosecution are limited and the quality of generated patent text requires improvement, the experiments following the 3-stage reinforcement learning from human feedback have demonstrated that generative language models are capable of reflecting the human feedback or intent in patent prosecution. To enhance the usability of language models, the implementation in this research utilizes modern techniques that enable execution on a single consumer-grade GPU. The demonstrated proof of concept, which reduces hardware requirements, will prove valuable in the future as more human feedback in patent prosecution become available for broader use, either within patent offices or in the public domain. (shrink)

If Large Language Models can make real scientific contributions, then they can genuinely use language, be systematically wrong, and be held responsible for their errors. AI models which can make scientific contributions thereby meet the criteria for scientific authorship.

Rahimzadeh et al. (2023) provide an interesting and timely discussion of the role of large language models (LLMs) in ethics education. While mentioning broader educational goals, the paper’s main f...

Transformer-based language models (TLMs) have widely been recognized to be a cutting-edge technology for the successful development of deep-learning-based solutions to problems and applications that require natural language processing and understanding. Like for other textual domains, TLMs have indeed pushed the state-of-the-art of AI approaches for many tasks of interest in the legal domain. Despite the first Transformer model being proposed about six years ago, there has been a rapid progress of this technology at an unprecedented rate, (...) whereby BERT and related models represent a major reference, also in the legal domain. This article provides the first systematic overview of TLM-based methods for AI-driven problems and tasks in the legal sphere. A major goal is to highlight research advances in this field so as to understand, on the one hand, how the Transformers have contributed to the success of AI in supporting legal processes, and on the other hand, what are the current limitations and opportunities for further research development. (shrink)

Could the employment of large language models (LLMs) in place of human advisors improve the problem-solving ability of democratic assemblies? LLMs represent the most significant recent incarnation of artificial intelligence and could change the future of democratic governance. This paper assesses their potential to serve as expert advisors to democratic representatives. While LLMs promise enhanced expertise availability and accessibility, they also present specific challenges. These include hallucinations, misalignment and value imposition. After weighing LLMs’ benefits and drawbacks against human advisors, (...) I argue that time-tested democratic procedures, such as deliberation and aggregation by voting, provide safeguards that are effective against human and machine advisor shortcomings alike. Additional protective measures may include custom training for advisor LLMs or boosting representatives’ competencies in query formulation. Implementation of adversarial proceedings in which LLM advisors would debate each other and provide dissenting opinions is likely to yield further epistemic benefits. Overall, promising interventions that would mitigate the LLM risks appear feasible. Machine advisors could thus empower human decision-makers to make more autonomous, higher-quality decisions. On this basis, I defend the hypothesis that LLMs’ careful integration into policymaking could augment democracy’s ability to address today’s complex social problems. (shrink)

The concept of imitation is both ubiquitous and curiously under-analysed in theoretical discussions about the cognitive powers and capacities of machines, and in particular—for what is the focus of this paper—the cognitive capacities of large language models (LLMs). The question whether LLMs understand what they say and what is said to them, for instance, is a disputed one, and it is striking to see this concept of imitation being mobilised here for sometimes contradictory purposes. After illustrating and discussing how (...) this concept is being used in various ways in the context of conversational systems, I draw a sketch of the different associations that the term ‘imitation’ conveys and distinguish two main senses of the notion. The first one is what I call the ‘imitative behaviour’ and the second is what I call the ‘status of imitation’. I then highlight and untangle some conceptual difficulties with these two senses and conclude that neither of these applies to LLMs. Finally, I introduce an appropriate description that I call ‘imitation manufacturing’. All this ultimately helps me to explore a radical negative answer to the question of machine understanding. (shrink)

This paper considers the kind of introspection that large language models (LLMs) might be able to have. It argues that LLMs, while currently limited in their introspective capabilities, are not inherently unable to have such capabilities: they already model the world, including mental concepts, and already have some introspection-like capabilities. With deliberate training, LLMs may develop introspective capabilities. The paper proposes a method for such training for introspection, situates possible LLM introspection in the 'possible forms of introspection' framework (...) proposed by Kammerer and Frankish, and considers the ethical ramifications of introspection and self-report in AI systems. (shrink)

Literacy is in decline in many parts of the world, accompanied by drops in associated cognitive skills (including IQ) and an increasing susceptibility to fake news. It is possible that the recent explosive growth and widespread deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) might exacerbate this trend, but there is also a chance that LLMs can help turn things around. We argue that cognitive science is ideally suited to help steer future literacy development in the right direction by challenging and (...) informing current educational practices and policy. Cognitive scientists have the right interdisciplinary skills to study, analyze, evaluate, and change LLMs to facilitate their critical use, to encourage turn-taking that promotes rather than hinders literacy, to support literacy acquisition in diverse and equitable ways, and to scaffold potential future changes in what it means to be literate. We urge cognitive scientists to take up this mantle—the future impact of LLMs on human literacy skills is too important to be left to the large, predominately U.S.-based tech companies. (shrink)

Large language models (LLMs) structure the linguistic landscape by reflecting certain beliefs and assumptions. In this paper, we address the risk of people unthinkingly adopting and being determined by the values or worldviews embedded in LLMs. We provide a Nietzschean critique of LLMs and, based on the concept of will to power, consider LLMs as will-to-power organisations. This allows us to conceptualise the interaction between self and LLMs as power struggles, which we understand as negotiation. Currently, the invisibility and (...) incomprehensibility of LLMs make it difficult, if not impossible, to engage in such negotiations. This bears the danger that LLMs make reality increasingly homogeneous by recycling beliefs and creating feedback loops that ultimately freeze power struggles and thus consolidate the status quo. In view of this, LLMs constrain self-formation. Based on our critique, we provide some recommendations on how to develop interactions with LLMs that enable negotiations that allow for different ways of being. (shrink)

Despite the exceptional performance of large language models (LLMs) on a wide range of tasks involving natural language processing and reasoning, there has been sharp disagreement as to whether their abilities extend to more creative human abilities. A core example is the interpretation of novel metaphors. Here we assessed the ability of GPT-4, a state-of-the-art large language model, to provide natural-language interpretations of a recent AI benchmark (Fig-QA dataset), novel literary metaphors drawn from Serbian poetry (...) and translated into English, and entire novel English poems. GPT-4 outperformed previous AI models on the Fig-QA dataset. For metaphors drawn from Serbian poetry, human judges – blind to the fact that an AI model was involved – rated metaphor interpretations generated by GPT-4 as superior to those provided by a group of college students. In interpreting reversed metaphors, GPT-4, as well as humans, exhibited signs of sensitivity to the Gricean cooperative principle. In addition, for several novel English poems GPT-4 produced interpretations that were rated as excellent or good by a human literary critic. These results indicate that LLMs such as GPT-4 have acquired an emergent ability to interpret literary metaphors, including those embedded in novel poems. (shrink)

In the era of generative AI and specifically large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, the intersection of artificial intelligence and human reasoning has become a focal point of global attention. Unlike conventional search engines, LLMs go beyond mere information retrieval, entering into the realm of discourse culture. Their outputs mimic well-considered, independent opinions or statements of facts, presenting a pretense of wisdom. This paper explores the potential transformative impact of LLMs on democratic societies. It delves into the concerns (...) regarding the difficulty in distinguishing ChatGPT-generated texts from human output. The discussion emphasizes the essence of authorship, rooted in the unique human capacity for reason—a quality indispensable for democratic discourse and successful collaboration within free societies. Highlighting the potential threats to democracy, this paper presents three arguments: the Substitution argument, the Authenticity argument, and the Facts argument. These arguments highlight the potential risks that are associated with an overreliance on LLMs. The central thesis posits that widespread deployment of LLMs may adversely affect the fabric of a democracy if not comprehended and addressed proactively and properly. In proposing a solution, we advocate for an emphasis on education as a means to mitigate risks. We suggest cultivating thinking skills in children, fostering coherent thought formulation, and distinguishing between machine-generated output and genuine, i.e., human, reasoning. The focus should be on the responsible development and usage of LLMs, with the goal of augmenting human capacities in thinking, deliberating and decision-making rather than substituting them. (shrink)

By now a consensus has emerged that people, when subjected to high-stakes decisions through automated decision systems, have a moral right to have these decisions explained to them. However, furnishing such explanations can be costly. So the right to an explanation creates what we call the cost problem: providing subjects of automated decisions with appropriate explanations of the grounds of these decisions can be costly for the companies and organisations that use these automated decision systems. In this paper, we explore (...) whether large language models could prove significant in overcoming the cost problem. We provide an initial case for believing that they can but only with serious ethical costs. (shrink)

Credences are mental states corresponding to degrees of confidence in propositions. Attribution of credences to Large Language Models (LLMs) is commonplace in the empirical literature on LLM evaluation. Yet the theoretical basis for LLM credence attribution is unclear. We defend three claims. First, our semantic claim is that LLM credence attributions are (at least in general) correctly interpreted literally, as expressing truth-apt beliefs on the part of scientists that purport to describe facts about LLM credences. Second, our metaphysical claim (...) is that the existence of LLM credences is at least plausible, although current evidence is inconclusive. Third, our epistemic claim is that LLM credence attributions made in the empirical literature on LLM evaluation are subject to non-trivial sceptical concerns. It is a distinct possibility that even if LLMs have credences, LLM credence attributions are generally false because the experimental techniques used to assess LLM credences are not truth-tracking. Our analysis has implications for the assessment of LLMs for properties like factuality and trustworthiness, and the broader scientific debate over the use of human cognition as a blueprint for understanding LLM behaviour. (shrink)

The article explores the use of the “ChatGPT” artificial intelligence language model in the Human Sciences field. ChatGPT uses natural language processing techniques to imitate human language and engage in artificial conversations. While the platform has gained attention from the scientific community, opinions on its usage are divided. The article presents some conversations with ChatGPT to examine ethical, relational and linguistic issues related to human-computer interaction (HCI) and assess its potential for Human Sciences research. The interaction (...) with the platform recalls the “uncanny valley” phenomenon still known to Social Robotics. While ChatGPT can be beneficial, it requires proper supervision and verification of its results. Furthermore, new research methods must be developed for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. (shrink)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are generative AI systems capable of producing original texts based on inputs about topic and style provided in the form of prompts or questions. The introduction of the outputs of these systems into human discursive practices poses unprecedented moral and political questions. The article articulates an analysis of the moral status of these systems and their interactions with human interlocutors based on the Habermasian theory of communicative action. The analysis explores, among other things, Habermas's inquiries (...) into the analogy between human minds and computers, and into the status of atypical participants in the linguistic community such as genetically modified subjects and animals. Major conclusions are the LLMs seem to qualify as authors that originally participate in discursive practices but do display only a structurally derivative form of communicative competence and fail to meet the status of communicative agents. In this sense, while the contribution of AI writing systems in public discourse and deliberation can support the process of mutual understanding within the community of speakers, the human actors involved in the development, use, and diffusion of these systems share a collective responsibility for the disclosure of AI authorship and verification and adjudication of validity claims. (shrink)

Cohen (2023) takes a fair and measured approach to the question of what ChatGPT means for bioethics. The hype cycles around AI often obscure the fact that ethicists have developed robust frameworks...

This paper provides an epistemological and methodological analysis of the recent practice of using neural language models to simulate brain language processing. It is argued that, on the one hand, this practice can be understood as an instance of the traditional simulative method in artificial intelligence, following a mechanistic understanding of the mind; on the other hand, that it modifies the simulative method significantly. Firstly, neural language models are introduced; a study case showing how neural language (...) models are being applied in cognitive neuroscience for simulative purposes is then presented; after recalling the main epistemological features of the simulative method in artificial intelligence, it is finally highlighted how the epistemic opacity of neural language models is tackled by using the brain itself to simulate the neural language model and to test hypotheses about it, in what is called here a co-simulation. (shrink)

In the article, the models of the language system are described represented in the works of Russian linguists. Russian language models that formed by the end of the 20th century in Russian linguistics are quite different and even contradictive. Level model of the language system is leading among the reviewed; it is the basis of most studies of language units. Other non-hierarchic models of the language system is less well known. The model of (...) language units representing the field brings together different levels of language units on the basis of their common features. Strategic setting can be semantic, functional or combination of both. The basis of the dynamic model is the idea of conceiving the order of the language system formation in the human mind. In the dynamic model of the language system, the criterion of quality is the time of forming special knowledge and skills in the speaker’s mind. In the multilayer model of the language, units are organized ‘in layers‘ and in the course of language dissolution we can trace their arrangement from the new complex forms to the deeper ones. Fourth non-hierarchical model is the associative-verbal network by Y. N. Karaulov. This model issuing from the fact that language is an open dynamic system. These models are an excellent illustration of General scientific principle of complementarity. Being so different, these models contribute to the creation of the general model both of the Russian and any other natural language. (shrink)