Does ChatGPT Have a Mind?

TL;DR

This paper investigates whether Large Language Models like ChatGPT possess a mind by examining their internal representations and action dispositions, finding evidence for some aspects of folk psychology but leaving key questions open.

Contribution

It provides a philosophical and interpretability-based analysis showing LLMs have robust internal representations and discusses the unresolved question of their action dispositions.

Findings

LLMs satisfy key conditions of various representation theories.

Evidence suggests LLMs may have some folk psychological features.

Skeptical challenges to LLM folk psychology are addressed and found less convincing.

Abstract

This paper examines the question of whether Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT possess minds, focusing specifically on whether they have a genuine folk psychology encompassing beliefs, desires, and intentions. We approach this question by investigating two key aspects: internal representations and dispositions to act. First, we survey various philosophical theories of representation, including informational, causal, structural, and teleosemantic accounts, arguing that LLMs satisfy key conditions proposed by each. We draw on recent interpretability research in machine learning to support these claims. Second, we explore whether LLMs exhibit robust dispositions to perform actions, a necessary component of folk psychology. We consider two prominent philosophical traditions, interpretationism and representationalism, to assess LLM action dispositions. While we find evidence suggesting LLMs may satisfy some criteria for having a mind, particularly in game-theoretic environments, we conclude that the data remains inconclusive. Additionally, we reply to several skeptical challenges to LLM folk psychology, including issues of sensory grounding, the "stochastic parrots" argument, and concerns about memorization. Our paper has three main upshots. First, LLMs do have robust internal representations. Second, there is an open question to answer about whether LLMs have robust action dispositions. Third, existing skeptical challenges to LLM representation do not survive philosophical scrutiny.