Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

GPT-ology, Computational Models, Silicon Sampling: How should we think about LLMs in Cognitive Science?

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 2406.09464 v1 pith:UITM27TN submitted 2024-06-13 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords modelsparadigmsllmsresearchsciencecognitioncognitivegpt-ology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models have taken the cognitive science world by storm. It is perhaps timely now to take stock of the various research paradigms that have been used to make scientific inferences about ``cognition" in these models or about human cognition. We review several emerging research paradigms -- GPT-ology, LLMs-as-computational-models, and ``silicon sampling" -- and review recent papers that have used LLMs under these paradigms. In doing so, we discuss their claims as well as challenges to scientific inference under these various paradigms. We highlight several outstanding issues about LLMs that have to be addressed to push our science forward: closed-source vs open-sourced models; (the lack of visibility of) training data; and reproducibility in LLM research, including forming conventions on new task ``hyperparameters" like instructions and prompts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The potential -- and the pitfalls -- of using pre-trained language models as cognitive science theories

    cs.CL 2025-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    Pretrained language models can serve as credible cognitive science theories only if researchers validate linking hypotheses and avoid pitfalls of commission and omission.

Pith tools