CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 18Cybernetics and Technology in SocietyEmbodied and Extended CognitionPhilosophy and Theoretical Science

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Transforming Agency. On the mode of existence of Large Language Models

Open access
Barandiaran, Xabier E., Almendros, Lola S.·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2407.10735arXiv 2407.10735

Preprint — published as 10.1007/s11097-025-10094-3

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper investigates the ontological characterization of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. Between inflationary and deflationary accounts, we pay special attention to their status as agents. This requires explaining in detail the architecture, processing, and training procedures that enable LLMs to display their capacities, and the extensions used to turn LLMs into agent-like systems. After a systematic analysis we conclude that a LLM fails to meet necessary and sufficient conditions for autonomous agency in the light of embodied theories of mind: the individuality condition (it is not the product of its own activity, it is not even directly affected by it), the normativity condition (it does not generate its own norms or goals), and, partially the interactional asymmetry condition (it is not the origin and sustained source of its interaction with the environment). If not agents, then ... what are LLMs? We argue that ChatGPT should be characterized as an interlocutor or linguistic automaton, a library-that-talks, devoid of (autonomous) agency, but capable to engage performatively on non-purposeful yet purpose-structured and purpose-bounded tasks. When interacting with humans, a "ghostly" component of the human-machine interaction makes it possible to enact genuine conversational experiences with LLMs. Despite their lack of sensorimotor and biological embodiment, LLMs textual embodiment (the training corpus) and resource-hungry computational embodiment, significantly transform existing forms of human agency. Beyond assisted and extended agency, the LLM-human coupling can produce midtended forms of agency, closer to the production of intentional agency than to the extended instrumentality of any previous technologies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2407.10735

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Generative technologies do not qualify as autonomous agents.

    “However, generative technologies do not qualify as autonomous agents [Barandiaran and Almendros, 2024, Gubelmann, 2024, Harvey, 2024].”

    From Generative midtended cognition and Artificial Intelligence: thinging with thinging things (2025) · cites this paper as Barandiaran and Almendros, 2024

    Sections 3.4 and 4 argue that raw GPT and ChatGPT lack capacities required for genuine autonomous agency. The claim extends that conclusion from LLMs to generative technologies generally. Section 6.1 also qualifies the conclusion: extended LLMs might qualify as autonomous agents under a task-completion definition, though they currently fall short under the authors’ stronger definition. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Both loops are person anchored.

    “Both loops are person anchored.”

    From Generative midtended cognition and Artificial Intelligence: thinging with thinging things (2025) · cites this paper as Barandiaran and Almendros, 2024

  • There is a form of extended agency that LLMs already offer that get more intentionally intimate than any previous known form.

    “There is a form of extended agency that LLMs already offer that get more intentionally intimate than any previous known form.”

    From Generative midtended cognition and Artificial Intelligence: thinging with thinging things (2025) · cites this paper as Barandiaran and Almendros, 2024

  • The process of writing (in paper or on the screen) is one that it is often experienced as the very act of writing driving itself the intentions of the writer: the interaction process of writing pulls agency out of the head.

    “The process of writing (in paper or on the screen) is one that it is often experienced as the very act of writing driving itself the intentions of the writer: the interaction process of writing pulls agency out of the head.”

    From Generative midtended cognition and Artificial Intelligence: thinging with thinging things (2025) · cites this paper as Barandiaran and Almendros, 2024

  • The environment (pen and paper or keyboard and screen) served as a support structure, a well integrated, creative scaffold, providing the material basis of extended memory, recomposition, and tinkering.

    “The environment (pen and paper or keyboard and screen) served as a support structure, a well integrated, creative scaffold, providing the material basis of extended memory, recomposition, and tinkering.”

    From Generative midtended cognition and Artificial Intelligence: thinging with thinging things (2025) · cites this paper as Barandiaran and Almendros, 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 135

  1. Aguilera, M., Millidge, B., Tschantz, A., & Buckley, C. L. (2022). How particular is the physics of the free energy principle? Physics of Life Reviews, 40, 24-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2021.11.001 · DOI
  2. Anderson, P. W. (1972). More Is Di ferent. Science, 177(4047), 393-396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4047.393 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Andrada, G., Clowes, R. W., & Smart, P. R. (2023). Varieties of transparency: Exploring agency within AI systems. AI & SOCIETY, 38(4), 1321-1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01326-6 · DOI
  4. Andreas, J. (2022). Language Models as Agent Models (arXiv:2212.01681). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.01681 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Barandiaran, X. E. (2007). Mental Life: Conceptual models and synthetic methodologies for a post-cognitivist psychology. In B. Wallace, A. Ross, J. Davies, & T. Anderson (Eds.), e World, the Mind and the Body: Psychology a ter cognitivism (pp. 49-90). Imprint Academic.
  6. Barandiaran, X. E., Di Paolo, E., & Rohde, M. (2009). Defining Agency: Individuality, Normativity, Asymmetry, and Spatio-temporality in Action. Adaptive Behavior, 17(5), 367-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712309343819 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Barandiaran, X. E., & Egbert, M. D. (2014). Norm-establishing and norm-following in autonomous agency. Artificial Life, 20(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1162/ARTL_a_00094 · DOI
  8. Barandiaran, X. E., & Moreno, A. (2006). On What Makes Certain Dynamical Systems Cognitive: A Minimally Cognitive Organization Program. Adaptive Behavior, 14(2), 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/105971230601400208 · DOI
  9. Bayne, T., & Williams, I. (2023). e Turing test is not a good benchmark for thought in LLMs. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01710-w · DOI
  10. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity: Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. MIT Press.
  11. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610-623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Berg, H. C. (2004). E. coli in motion. Springer [u.a.].
  13. Bertolini, A., & Episcopo, F. (2022). Robots and AI as Legal Subjects? Disentangling the Ontological and Functional Perspective. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 842213. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.842213 · DOI
  14. Biever, C. (2023). ChatGPT broke the Turing test-e race is on for new ways to assess AI. Nature, 619(7971), 686-689. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02361-7 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Bousmalis, K., Vezzani, G., Rao, D., Devin, C., Lee, A. X., Bauza, M., Davchev, T., Zhou, Y., Gupta, A., Raju, A., Laurens, A., Fantacci, C., Dalibard, V., Zambelli, M., Martins, M., Pevceviciute, R., Blokzijl, M., Denil, M., Batchelor, N., … Heess, N. (2023). RoboCat: A Self-Improving Generalist Agent for Robotic Manipulation (arXiv:2306.11706). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.11706 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Brooks, R. A. (1990). Elephants don't play chess. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 6(1-2), 3-15.
  17. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D., Wu, J., Winter, C., … Amodei, D. (2020). Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877-1901. https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2020/hash/1457c0d6bfcb4967418b b8ac142f64a-Ab stract.html
  18. Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2016). How Many Words Do We Know? Practical Estimates of Vocabulary Size Dependent on Word Definition, the Degree of Language Input and the Participant's Age. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01116 · DOI
  19. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Ribeiro, M. T., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 (arXiv:2303.12712). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Butkus, M. A. (2020). e Human Side of Artificial Intelligence. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(5), 2427-2437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00239-9 · DOI
  21. Buzsaki, G. (2006). Rhythms of the Brain (1st ed.). Oxford University Press, USA.
  22. Calvo, P., & Gomila, T. (2008). Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. Elsevier Science.
  23. Carruthers, P. (2006). e Architecture of the Mind. Oxford University Press, USA.
  24. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. e MIT Press.
  25. Chemero, A. (2023). LLMs di fer from human cognition because they are not embodied. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01723-5 · DOI
  26. Chen, J., Jiang, Y., Lu, J., & Zhang, L. (2024). S-Agents: Self-organizing Agents in Open-ended Environments (arXiv:2402.04578). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.04578 · DOI
  27. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(03), 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). e extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7.
  29. Clowes, R. W., Smart, P. R., & Heersmink, R. (2024). e Ethics of the Extended Mind: Mental Privacy, Manipulation and Agency. In B. Beck, O. Friedrich, & J. Heinrichs (Eds.), Neuroprosthetics: Ethics of applied situated cognition. Springer Verlag.
  30. Coeckelbergh, M. (2021). Narrative responsibility and artificial intelligence: How AI challenges human responsibility and sense-making. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01375-x · DOI · Paper page
  31. Collaboration, O. X.-E., Padalkar, A., Pooley, A., Jain, A., Bewley, A., Herzog, A., Irpan, A., Khazatsky, A., Rai, A., Singh, A., Brohan, A., Ra fin, A., Wahid, A., Burgess-Limerick, B., Kim, B., Schölkopf, B., Ichter, B., Lu, C., Xu, C., … Cui, Z. J. (2023). Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models (arXiv:2310.08864). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.08864 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press.
  33. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error. G.P. Putnam. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events (Underlining). Oxford University Press, USA.
  34. Dennett, D. C. (1989). e Intentional Stance. MIT Press.
  35. Di Paolo, E. A., Buhrmann, T., & Barandiaran, X. E. (2017). Sensorimotor Life: An enactive proposal. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198786849.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Di Paolo, E. A., Cu fari, E. C., & De Jaegher, H. (2018). Linguistic bodies: e continuity between life and language. MIT press. http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=9969BBD6CC722AE0EF427DE8C575 85FC
  37. Di Paolo, E. A., ompson, E., & Beer, R. (2022). Laying down a forking path: Tensions between enaction and the free energy principle. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences, 3. https://doi.org/10.33735/phimisci.2022.9187 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can't do: A critique of artificial reason. e MIT Press.
  39. Dziri, N., Lu, X., Sclar, M., Li, X. L., Jiang, L., Lin, B. Y., Welleck, S., West, P., Bhagavatula, C., Bras, R. L., Hwang, J. D., Sanyal, S., Ren, X., Ettinger, A., Harchaoui, Z., & Choi, Y. (2023, November 2). Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality. irty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Fkckkr3ya8
  40. Favela, L. H. (2020). Dynamical systems theory in cognitive science and neuroscience. Philosophy Compass, 15(8), e12695. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12695 · DOI
  41. Floridi, L. (2007). A Look into the Future Impact of ICT on Our Lives. e Information Society, 23(1), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240601059094 · DOI
  42. Floridi, L. (2023). AI as Agency Without Intelligence: On ChatGPT, Large Language Models, and Other Generative Models. Philosophy & Technology, 36(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00621-y · DOI · Paper page
  43. Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Fourneret, E., & Yvert, B. (2020). Digital Normativity: A Challenge for Human Subjectivation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, 27. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00027 · DOI
  45. Freeman, W. J. (2001). How Brains Make Up eir Minds (1st ed.). Columbia University Press.
  46. Friston, K. (2009). e free-energy principle: A rough guide to the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(7), 293-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind (First edition). Oxford University Press.
  48. Gallagher, S. (2023). Embodied and Enactive Approaches to Cognition (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009209793 · DOI
  49. Ge, W., Chen, S., Chen, G., Chen, J., Chen, Z., Yan, S., Zhu, C., Lin, Z., Xie, W., Wang, X., Gao, A., Zhang, Z., Li, J., Wan, X., & Wang, B. (2023). MLLM-Bench, Evaluating Multi-modal LLMs using GPT-4V (arXiv:2311.13951). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.13951 · DOI
  50. Gemini Team, Anil, R., Borgeaud, S., Wu, Y., Alayrac, J.-B., Yu, J., Soricut, R., Schalkwyk, J., Dai, A. M., Hauth, A., Millican, K., Silver, D., Petrov, S., Johnson, M., Antonoglou, I., Schrittwieser, J., Glaese, A., Chen, J., Pitler, E., … Vinyals, O. (2023). Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models (arXiv:2312.11805). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.11805 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Gibson, J. J. (1979). e Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Routledge.
  52. Guo, B., Zhang, X., Wang, Z., Jiang, M., Nie, J., Ding, Y., Yue, J., & Wu, Y. (2023). How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection (arXiv:2301.07597). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.07597 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2021). Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding (arXiv:2009.03300). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.03300 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Heras-Escribano, M. (2019). e Philosophy of A fordances (1st ed. 2019 edition). Palgrave Macmillan.
  55. Hessel, J., Marasović, A., Hwang, J. D., Lee, L., Da, J., Zellers, R., Manko f, R., & Choi, Y. (2023). Do Androids Laugh at Electric Sheep? Humor "Understanding" Benchmarks from e New Yorker Caption Contest (arXiv:2209.06293). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.06293 · DOI
  56. Hicks, M. T., Humphries, J., & Slater, J. (2024). ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Huang, X., Liu, W., Chen, X., Wang, X., Wang, H., Lian, D., Wang, Y., Tang, R., & Chen, E. (2024). Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey (arXiv:2402.02716). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.02716 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Hutto, D. D., & Myin, E. (2012). Radicalizing Enactivism: Basic Minds Without Content. MIT Press.
  59. Jebari, K., & Lundborg, J. (2021). Artificial superintelligence and its limits: Why AlphaZero cannot become a general agent. AI & SOCIETY, 36(3), 807-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01070-3 · DOI
  60. Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. de las, Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., Lavaud, L. R., Lachaux, M.-A., Stock, P., Scao, T. L., Lavril, T., Wang, T., Lacroix, T., & Sayed, W. E. (2023). Mistral 7B. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.
  61. Jiang, D., Zhang, J., Weller, O., Weir, N., Van Durme, B., & Khashabi, D. (2024). SELF-[IN]CORRECT: LLMs Struggle with Refining Self-Generated Responses (arXiv:2404.04298). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04298 · arXiv
  62. Johnson, M., & Lako f, G. (2002). Why Cognitive Linguistics Requires Embodied Realism. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.016 · DOI
  63. Jones, C. R., & Bergen, B. K. (2024). People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test (arXiv:2405.08007). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.08007 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., Johnston, S., El-Showk, S., Jones, A., Elhage, N., Hume, T., Chen, A., Bai, Y., Bowman, S., Fort, S., … Kaplan, J. (2022). Language Models (Mostly) Know What ey Know. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.05221 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Kambhampati, S. (2023, September 12). Can LLMs Really Reason and Plan? - Communications of the ACM. Communications of the ACM. https://cacm.acm.org/blogcacm/can-llms-really-reason-and-plan/
  66. Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020). Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models (arXiv:2001.08361). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.08361 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Kirchho f, M., Parr, T., Palacios, E., Friston, K., & Kiverstein, J. (2018). e Markov blankets of life: Autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle. Journal of e Royal Society Interface, 15(138), 20170792. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0792 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Kocijan, V., Davis, E., Lukasiewicz, T., Marcus, G., & Morgenstern, L. (2023). e defeat of the Winograd Schema Challenge. Artificial Intelligence, 325, 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2023.103971 · DOI
  69. Kubes, T., & Reinhardt, T. (2022). Techno-species in the Becoming Towards a Relational Ontology of Multi-species Assemblages (ROMA). NanoEthics, 16(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00401-y · DOI
  70. Lako f, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by (Vol. 111). Chicago London.
  71. Lewis-Martin, J. (2022). What kinds of groups are group agents? Synthese, 200(4), 283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03766-z · DOI
  72. Li, H., Chong, Y. Q., Stepputtis, S., Campbell, J., Hughes, D., Lewis, M., & Sycara, K. (2023). eory of Mind for Multi-Agent Collaboration via Large Language Models. 180-192. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.10701 · DOI · Paper page
  73. Li, J., Zhang, Q., Yu, Y., Fu, Q., & Ye, D. (2024). More Agents Is All You Need (arXiv:2402.05120). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.05120 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Li, K., Hopkins, A. K., Bau, D., Viégas, F., Pfister, H., & Wattenberg, M. (2023). Emergent World Representations: Exploring a Sequence Model Trained on a Synthetic Task (arXiv:2210.13382). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382 · arXiv
  75. Liu, X., Yu, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Lei, X., Lai, H., Gu, Y., Gu, Y., Ding, H., Men, K., Yang, K., Zhang, S., Deng, X., Zeng, A., Du, Z., Zhang, C., Shen, S., Zhang, T., Su, Y., … Tang, J. (2023). AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents. ArXiv, abs/2308.03688. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.03688 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Mabaso, B. A. (2021). Computationally rational agents can be moral agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09527-1 · DOI
  77. Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegre fe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., Gupta, S., Majumder, B. P., Hermann, K., Welleck, S., Yazdanbakhsh, A., & Clark, P. (2023). Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback (arXiv:2303.17651). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.17651 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Malafouris, L. (2016). How ings Shape the Mind: A eory of Material Engagement. MIT Press.
  79. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1944). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge. Meta. (2023, September 27). Introducing the New Ray-Ban | Meta Smart Glasses. Meta. https://about. b.com/news/2023/09/new-ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses/
  80. Mialon, G., Dessì, R., Lomeli, M., Nalmpantis, C., Pasunuru, R., Raileanu, R., Rozière, B., Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Celikyilmaz, A., Grave, E., LeCun, Y., & Scialom, T. (2023). Augmented Language Models: A Survey (arXiv:2302.07842). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.07842 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Miller, R. (2023). Holding Large Language Models to Account. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Holding-Large-Language-Models-to-A ccount-Miller/5360b929d1782d21ed71b5528fd546f9f15a4106
  82. Mirchandani, S., Xia, F., Florence, P., Ichter, B., Driess, D., Arenas, M. G., Rao, K., Sadigh, D., & Zeng, A. (2023). Large Language Models as General Pattern Machines. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2307.04721 · DOI · Paper page
  83. Mitchell, M., & Krakauer, D. C. (2023). e debate over understanding in AI's large language models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(13), e2215907120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2215907120 · DOI · Paper page
  84. Moreno, A., & Mossio, M. (2015). Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical and eoretical Enquiry. Springer.
  85. Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 135-183.
  86. Noë, A. (2004). Action in Perception. e MIT Press.
  87. Norvig, P., & Russell, S. (2021). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, Global Edition.
  88. O'Donnell, J. (2024, May 1). Sam Altman says helpful agents are poised to become AI's killer function. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/05/01/1091979/sam-altman-says-helpf ul-agents-are-poised-to-become-ais-killer-function/ OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 Technical Report (arXiv:2303.08774). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 · DOI · Paper page
  89. Pepperberg, I. M. (2006). Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey parrots. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.005 · DOI
  90. Pérez, D. I., & Gomila, A. (2021). Social Cognition and the Second Person in Human Interaction (1st edition). Routledge.
  91. Pérez-Verdugo, M. (2022). Situating Transparency: An Extended Cognition Approach. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 41(3), 7-24.
  92. Port, R. F., & Gelder, T. V. (1995). Mind as motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. MIT Press.
  93. Putnam, H. (1965). e mental life of some machines. In Philosophical Papers: Volume 2, Mind, Language and Reality (pp. 408-428). Cambridge University Press.
  94. Raja, V., Valluri, D., Baggs, E., Chemero, A., & Anderson, M. L. (2021). e Markov blanket trick: On the scope of the free energy principle and active inference. Physics of Life Reviews, 39, 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2021.09.001 · DOI
  95. Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford University Press.
  96. Reed, S., Zolna, K., Parisotto, E., Colmenarejo, S. G., Novikov, A., Barth-maron, G., Giménez, M., Sulsky, Y., Kay, J., Springenberg, J. T., Eccles, T., Bruce, J., Razavi, A., Edwards, A., Heess, N., Chen, Y., Hadsell, R., Vinyals, O., Bordbar, M., & Freitas, N. de. (2022). A Generalist Agent. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1ikK0kHjvj
  97. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323(6088), 533-536. https://doi.org/10.1038/323533a0 · DOI · Paper page
  98. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & Group, the P. R. (1987). Parallel Distributed Processing, Vol. 1: Foundations. e MIT Press.
  99. Sakaguchi, K., Bras, R. L., Bhagavatula, C., & Choi, Y. (2019). WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at Scale (arXiv:1907.10641). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.10641 · DOI
  100. Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023). Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach emselves to Use Tools (arXiv:2302.04761). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.04761 · DOI · Paper page
  101. Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Hubert, T., Simonyan, K., Sifre, L., Schmitt, S., Guez, A., Lockhart, E., Hassabis, D., Graepel, T., Lillicrap, T., & Silver, D. (2020). Mastering Atari, Go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model. Nature, 588, 604-609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-03051-4 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Schwitzgebel, E., Schwitzgebel, D., & Strasser, A. (2023). Creating a Large Language Model of a Philosopher (Version 2). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2302.01339 · DOI
  103. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
  104. Seth, A. K. (2014). A predictive processing theory of sensorimotor contingencies: Explaining the puzzle of perceptual presence and its absence in synesthesia. Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2013.877880 · DOI · Paper page
  105. Shardlow, M., & Przybyła, P. (2023). Deanthropomorphising NLP: Can a Language Model Be Conscious? (arXiv:2211.11483). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.11483 · DOI
  106. Siegelmann, H. T., & Sontag, E. D. (1995). On the Computational Power of Neural Nets. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 50(1), 132-150. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.1995.1013 · DOI
  107. Simondon, G. (2017). On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects. University of Minnesota Press.
  108. Sprague, Z., Ye, X., Bostrom, K., Chaudhuri, S., & Durrett, G. (2023). MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep So t Reasoning (arXiv:2310.16049). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.16049 · DOI
  109. Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., Kluska, A., Lewkowycz, A., Agarwal, A., Power, A., Ray, A., Warstadt, A., Kocurek, A. W., Safaya, A., Tazarv, A., … Wu, Z. (2023). Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models (arXiv:2206.04615). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.04615 · DOI · Paper page
  110. Sterelny, K. (2001). e evolution of agency and other essays. Cambridge University Press.
  111. Tikhonov, A., & Yamshchikov, I. P. (2023). Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation (arXiv:2311.02049). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.02049 · DOI
  112. Tomasello, M. (2022). e Evolution of Agency: Behavioral Organization from Lizards to Humans. e MIT Press.
  113. Torrance, S. (2014). Artificial Consciousness and Artificial Ethics: Between Realism and Social Relationism. Philosophy & Technology, 27(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0136-5 · DOI
  114. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, LIX(236), 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433 · DOI · Paper page
  115. Valmeekam, K., Marquez, M., Sreedharan, S., & Kambhampati, S. (2023, November 2). On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models-A Critical Investigation. irty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. https://openreview.net/forum?id=X6dEqXIsEW
  116. Valmeekam, K., Sreedharan, S., Marquez, M., Hernandez, A. O., & Kambhampati, S. (2023). On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models (A Critical Investigation with a Proposed Benchmark). ArXiv, abs/2302.06706. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.06706 · DOI
  117. Van Veen, D., Van Uden, C., Blankemeier, L., Delbrouck, J.-B., Aali, A., Bluethgen, C., Pareek, A., Polacin, M., Reis, E. P., Seehofnerova, A., Rohatgi, N., Hosamani, P., Collins, W., Ahuja, N., Langlotz, C. P., Hom, J., Gatidis, S., Pauly, J., & Chaudhari, A. S. (2024). Adapted Large Language Models Can Outperform Medical Experts in Clinical Text Summarization (arXiv:2309.07430). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07430 · arXiv
  118. Varela, F. J., ompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). e embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
  119. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is All you Need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91 bd053c1c4a8 45aa-Abstract.html
  120. Verbeek, P.-P. (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human-technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 387-395.
  121. Waisberg, E., Ong, J., Masalkhi, M., Zaman, N., Sarker, P., Lee, A. G., & Tavakkoli, A. (2023). Meta smart glasses-Large language models and the future for assistive glasses for individuals with vision impairments. Eye, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02842-z · DOI
  122. Wang, L., Ma, C., Feng, X., Zhang, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Tang, J., Chen, X., Lin, Y., Zhao, W. X., Wei, Z., & Wen, J.-R. (2023). A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.
  123. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., & Zhou, D. (2023). Chain-of-ought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models (arXiv:2201.11903). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.11903 · DOI · Paper page
  124. Wu, W., Morris, J. X., & Levine, L. (2024). Do language models plan ahead for future tokens? (arXiv:2404.00859). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.00859 · DOI
  125. Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., Zheng, R., Fan, X., Wang, X., Xiong, L., Zhou, Y., Wang, W., Jiang, C., Zou, Y., Liu, X., … Gui, T. (2023). e Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey (arXiv:2309.07864). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07864 · arXiv
  126. Xiang, J., Tao, T., Gu, Y., Shu, T., Wang, Z., Yang, Z., & Hu, Z. (2023). Language Models Meet World Models: Embodied Experiences Enhance Language Models (arXiv:2305.10626). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.10626 · DOI · Paper page
  127. Xie, T., Zhang, D., Chen, J., Li, X., Zhao, S., Cao, R., Hua, T. J., Cheng, Z., Shin, D., Lei, F., Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Zhou, S., Savarese, S., Xiong, C., Zhong, V., & Yu, T. (2024). OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments (arXiv:2404.07972). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.07972 · DOI · Paper page
  128. Yang, J., Jimenez, C. E., Wettig, A., Lieret, K., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Press, O. (2024). SWE-agent: Agent Computer Interfaces Enable So tware Engineering Language Models.
  129. Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Gri fiths, T. L., Cao, Y., & Narasimhan, K. (2023). Tree of oughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models (arXiv:2305.10601). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.10601 · DOI · Paper page
  130. Yildirim, I., & Paul, L. A. (2024). From task structures to world models: What do LLMs know? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(5), 404-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.02.008 · DOI
  131. Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y. (2019). HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence? (arXiv:1905.07830). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.07830 · DOI
  132. Zhou, A., Yan, K., Shlapentokh-Rothman, M., Wang, H., & Wang, Y.-X. (2023). Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Models (arXiv:2310.04406). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.04406 · DOI · Paper page
  133. Zhou, W., Jiang, Y. E., Li, L., Wu, J., Wang, T., Qiu, S., Zhang, J., Chen, J., Wu, R., Wang, S., Zhu, S., Chen, J., Zhang, W., Tang, X., Zhang, N., Chen, H., Cui, P., & Sachan, M. (2023). Agents: An Open-source Framework for Autonomous Language Agents (arXiv:2309.07870). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.07870 · DOI · Paper page
  134. Ziegler, D. M., Stiennon, N., Wu, J., Brown, T. B., Radford, A., Amodei, D., Christiano, P., & Irving, G. (2020). Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences (arXiv:1909.08593). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1909.08593 · DOI · Paper page
  135. Ziemke, T., & Lowe, R. (2009). On the Role of Emotion in Embodied Cognitive Architectures: From Organisms to Robots. Cognitive Computation, 1(1), 104-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-009-9012-0 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Barandiaran, X. E., & Almendros, L. S.
Affiliations
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
  • Universidad de Salamanca (ES)
Corresponding author
  • Barandiaran, Xabier E.
  • Almendros, Lola S.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
1568-7759 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2407.10735
arXiv
2407.10735
OpenAlex
W4413410704
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7
FWCI
67.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (10.13039.501100011033, PID2019-104576GB-I00, PID2019, 10.13039, .13039/501100011033, 501100011033)
  • Eusko Jaurlaritza (IT1668-22, PID2019-104576GB-I00)
  • Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (PID2023-147251NB-I00, 501100011033, PID 2019-104576GB-I00, 10.13039/501100011033, 13039, .13039/501100011033, 10.13039, PID2019)
  • NextGenerationEU
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, autonomous agency, interactional asymmetry, human-machine interaction, intentional agency, performativity

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