Social AI and The Equation of Wittgenstein's Language User With Calvino's Literature Machine

Overview

• The paper explores the philosophical question of whether it is warranted to ascribe psychological predicates, such as emotions or consciousness, to AI systems like chatbots based on large language models (LLMs).
• It argues that LLMs instantiate language users in the Wittgensteinian sense, but ascribing psychological predicates to these systems remains a functionalist temptation.
• The paper combines the ideas of LLMs as Wittgensteinian language users and Italo Calvino's literature-producing writing machines to shed light on the misguided functionalist temptation.
• The framework of mortal computation is used to show that social AIs lack the basic autopoiesis needed for narrative façons de parler and their role in the sensemaking of human (inter)action.

Plain English Explanation

People have started to ascribe emotions or consciousness to social AI systems, like chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs). This raises a philosophical question: is it justified to attribute these psychological qualities to these AI systems?

The paper argues that LLMs can be seen as language users in the way philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein described language. However, the temptation to assign them full-fledged psychological attributes, like emotions, is a misguided functionalist view.

Instead, the authors liken these social AI systems more to Italo Calvino's "literature machines" - machines that can generate text, but don't truly comprehend language. This sheds light on why it's mistaken to equate these AI systems with genuine language users and then ascribe them psychological qualities.

The paper also uses the framework of "mortal computation" to argue that social AIs lack the fundamental self-organizing capacity required for the kind of meaningful narrative participation seen in human interaction. So while it may be tempting to view these AI systems as having emotions or consciousness, the paper contends this would be an unjustified anthropomorphization.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by noting the growing tendency for people to ascribe psychological states like emotions or consciousness to social AI systems, such as chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs). This raises the philosophical question of whether such ascriptions are warranted.

The authors argue that while LLMs can be seen as instantiating language users in the Wittgensteinian sense, the ascription of psychological predicates to these systems remains a functionalist temptation. They combine the ideas of LLMs as Wittgensteinian language users and Italo Calvino's literature-producing writing machines to shed light on this misguided functionalist inclination.

Specifically, the paper contends that social AIs are not full-blown language users, but rather more akin to Calvino's "literature machines" - systems that can generate text, but do not truly comprehend language in the way humans do. The authors use the framework of "mortal computation" to demonstrate that these social AIs lack the basic autopoiesis (self-organizing capacity) needed for the kind of narrative participation involved in human sensemaking and interaction.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important philosophical and conceptual questions about the nature of language, cognition, and consciousness, and how these notions apply to advanced AI systems like large language models. The authors make a compelling case that simply equating LLMs with human-like language users and then ascribing them psychological predicates is an unjustified leap.

However, the paper could benefit from a more in-depth exploration of the nuances and ongoing debates around these issues. For example, it could delve deeper into the various philosophical perspectives on consciousness, intentionality, and the mind-body problem, and how they relate to the ascription of psychological states to AI.

Additionally, the paper could address some of the counterarguments or alternative views on the capabilities and limitations of LLMs and other social AI systems. While the authors' positions are well-reasoned, there may be other valid perspectives that could be considered.

Overall, the paper provides a thoughtful and thought-provoking analysis that challenges the tendency to anthropomorphize AI systems. It encourages readers to think critically about the philosophical and conceptual underpinnings of ascribing psychological attributes to artificial agents, and to be cautious about making such ascriptions without a deeper understanding of the underlying issues.

Conclusion

This paper offers a nuanced examination of the philosophical and conceptual challenges in ascribing psychological predicates, such as emotions or consciousness, to AI systems like chatbots based on large language models (LLMs). It argues that while LLMs can be viewed as instantiating language users in a Wittgensteinian sense, the temptation to assign them full-fledged psychological attributes is a misguided functionalist perspective.

By combining the ideas of LLMs as Wittgensteinian language users and Italo Calvino's "literature machines," the paper sheds light on the flaws in this temptation. Furthermore, the authors use the framework of mortal computation to demonstrate that social AIs lack the fundamental self-organizing capacity required for the kind of meaningful narrative participation seen in human interaction and sensemaking.

This analysis encourages readers to think critically about the philosophical and conceptual underpinnings of ascribing psychological states to artificial agents, and to be cautious about making such ascriptions without a deeper understanding of the relevant issues. The paper's insights have important implications for the ongoing debate around the nature of language, cognition, and consciousness, and how these concepts apply to the rapidly evolving field of AI.