Cited by 27Ethics and Social Impacts of AILiterary and Philosophical StudiesCybernetics and Technology in Society

“Personhood and AI: Why large language models don’t understand us”

Browning, Jacob·2024·AI & SOCIETY

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-023-01724-y

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Properties related to the creative person appear out of discussion for generative AI.

    “While several of the properties of press and process might be achieved - or at least simulated - by generative learning solutions, those related to the creative person appear out of discussion (Browning, 2023).”

    From On the creativity of large language models (2025) · cites this paper as Browning, 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Browning, J.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Browning, Jacob
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Published
2023-07-12
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
2499-2506
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
OpenAlex
W4384072911
Cited by
27
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7
FWCI
6.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
AI & Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
personhood, large language models, moral status of AI, AI autonomy, culpability, offensiveness, commonsense reasoning, human-like intelligence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review