Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Language Models as Critical Thinking Tools: A Case Study of Philosophers

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.04516 v2 pith:A65LHEPK submitted 2024-04-06 cs.HC cs.CLcs.CY

classification cs.HCcs.CLcs.CY
keywords thinkingcriticalphilosopherstoolsworkcasefindlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Levels of Autonomy for AI Agents

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A user-role-based five-level framework for designing, certifying, and evaluating AI agent autonomy as a choice independent of agent capability.

  2. What Does Success Look Like? Catalyzing Meeting Intentionality with AI-Assisted Prospective Reflection

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A study with 18 employees found that a generative AI Meeting Purpose Assistant can help people clarify meeting goals, anticipate challenges, and change how they prepare, with social and technical barriers to adoption.

Pith tools