Evaluating the cognitive capacities of large language models (LLMs) requires overcoming not only anthropomorphic but also anthropocentric biases. This article identifies two types of anthropocentric bias that have been neglected: overlooking how auxiliary factors can impede LLM performance despite competence (Type-I), and dismissing LLM mechanistic strategies that differ from those of humans as not genuinely competent (Type-II). Mitigating these biases necessitates an empirically-driven, iterative approach to mapping cognitive tasks to LLM-specific capacities and mechanisms, which can be done by supplementing carefully designed behavioral experiments with mechanistic studies.

Analogical reasoning is considered core to human learning and cognition. Recent studies have compared the analogical reasoning abilities of human subjects and Large Language Models (LLMs) on abstract symbol manipulation tasks, such as letter string analogies. However, these studies largely neglect analogical reasoning over semantically meaningful symbols, such as natural language words. This ability to draw analogies that link language to non-linguistic domains, which we term semantic structure-mapping, is thought to play a crucial role in language acquisition and broader cognitive development. We test human subjects and LLMs on analogical reasoning tasks that require the transfer of semantic structure and content from one domain to another. Advanced LLMs match human performance across many task variations. However, humans and LLMs respond differently to certain task variations and semantic distractors. Overall, our data suggest that LLMs are approaching human-level performance on these important cognitive tasks, but are not yet entirely human like.

Deep learning has enabled major advances across most areas of artificial intelligence research. This remarkable progress extends beyond mere engineering achievements and holds significant relevance for the philosophy of cognitive science. Deep neural networks have made significant strides in overcoming the limitations of older connectionist models that once occupied the centre stage of philosophical debates about cognition. This development is directly relevant to long-standing theoretical debates in the philosophy of cognitive science. Furthermore, ongoing methodological challenges related to the comparative evaluation of deep neural networks stand to benefit greatly from interdisciplinary collaboration with philosophy and cognitive science. The time is ripe for philosophers to explore foundational issues related to deep learning and cognition; this perspective paper surveys key areas where their contributions can be especially fruitful.

In this paper, the second of two companion pieces, we explore novel philosophical questions raised by recent progress in large language models (LLMs) that go beyond the classical debates covered in the first part. We focus particularly on issues related to interpretability, examining evidence from causal intervention methods about the nature of LLMs' internal representations and computations. We also discuss the implications of multimodal and modular extensions of LLMs, recent debates about whether such systems may meet minimal criteria for consciousness, and concerns about secrecy and reproducibility in LLM research. Finally, we discuss whether LLM-like systems may be relevant to modeling aspects of human cognition, if their architectural characteristics and learning scenario are adequately constrained.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable performance improvement through in-context learning (ICL) by leveraging task-specific examples in the input. However, the mechanisms behind this improvement remain elusive. In this work, we investigate how LLM embeddings and attention representations change following in-context-learning, and how these changes mediate improvement in behavior. We employ neuroscience-inspired techniques such as representational similarity analysis (RSA) and propose novel methods for parameterized probing and measuring ratio of attention to relevant vs. irrelevant information in Llama-2 70B and Vicuna 13B. We designed two tasks with a priori relationships among their conditions: linear regression and reading comprehension. We formed hypotheses about expected similarities in task representations and measured hypothesis alignment of LLM representations before and after ICL as well as changes in attention. Our analyses revealed a meaningful correlation between improvements in behavior after ICL and changes in both embeddings and attention weights across LLM layers. This empirical framework empowers a nuanced understanding of how latent representations shape LLM behavior, offering valuable tools and insights for future research and practical applications.

Large language models like GPT-4 have achieved remarkable proficiency in a broad spectrum of language-based tasks, some of which are traditionally associated with hallmarks of human intelligence. This has prompted ongoing disagreements about the extent to which we can meaningfully ascribe any kind of linguistic or cognitive competence to language models. Such questions have deep philosophical roots, echoing longstanding debates about the status of artificial neural networks as cognitive models. This article -- the first part of two companion papers -- serves both as a primer on language models for philosophers, and as an opinionated survey of their significance in relation to classic debates in the philosophy cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and linguistics. We cover topics such as compositionality, language acquisition, semantic competence, grounding, world models, and the transmission of cultural knowledge. We argue that the success of language models challenges several long-held assumptions about artificial neural networks. However, we also highlight the need for further empirical investigation to better understand their internal mechanisms. This sets the stage for the companion paper (Part II), which turns to novel empirical methods for probing the inner workings of language models, and new philosophical questions prompted by their latest developments.

A core challenge in the development of increasingly capable AI systems is to make them safe and reliable by ensuring their behaviour is consistent with human values. This challenge, known as the alignment problem, does not merely apply to hypothetical future AI systems that may pose catastrophic risks; it already applies to current systems, such as large language models, whose potential for harm is rapidly increasing. In this paper, I assess whether we are on track to solve the alignment problem for large language models, and what that means for the safety of future AI systems. I argue that existing strategies for alignment are insufficient, because large language models remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks that can reliably elicit unsafe behaviour. I offer an explanation of this lingering vulnerability on which it is not simply a contingent limitation of current language models, but has deep technical ties to a crucial aspect of what makes these models useful and versatile in the first place -- namely, their remarkable aptitude to learn "in context" directly from user instructions. It follows that the alignment problem is not only unsolved for current AI systems, but may be intrinsically difficult to solve without severely undermining their capabilities. Furthermore, this assessment raises concerns about the prospect of ensuring the safety of future and more capable AI systems.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

The remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex linguistic tasks has sparked a lively debate on the nature of their capabilities. Unlike humans, these models learn language exclusively from textual data, without direct interaction with the real world. Nevertheless, they can generate seemingly meaningful text about a wide range of topics. This impressive accomplishment has rekindled interest in the classical 'Symbol Grounding Problem,' which questioned whether the internal representations and outputs of classical symbolic AI systems could possess intrinsic meaning. Unlike these systems, modern LLMs are artificial neural networks that compute over vectors rather than symbols. However, an analogous problem arises for such systems, which we dub the Vector Grounding Problem. This paper has two primary objectives. First, we differentiate various ways in which internal representations can be grounded in biological or artificial systems, identifying five distinct notions discussed in the literature: referential, sensorimotor, relational, communicative, and epistemic grounding. Unfortunately, these notions of grounding are often conflated. We clarify the differences between them, and argue that referential grounding is the one that lies at the heart of the Vector Grounding Problem. Second, drawing on theories of representational content in philosophy and cognitive science, we propose that certain LLMs, particularly those fine-tuned with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), possess the necessary features to overcome the Vector Grounding Problem, as they stand in the requisite causal-historical relations to the world that underpin intrinsic meaning. We also argue that, perhaps unexpectedly, multimodality and embodiment are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for referential grounding in artificial systems.