Dead Cognitions: A Census of Misattributed Insights

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT) can communicate in strikingly humanlike ways. This has prompted many chatbot users to attribute psychological properties, including consciousness, to these systems. However, there is little scientific evidence that current AI chatbots are conscious. How, then, should we understand people's consciousness attributions to chatbots? Are they merely metaphorical claims, or do they express genuine beliefs? If these attributions lack evidential support, are users epistemically blameworthy for making them, or might they be epistemically innocent, yielding significant benefits otherwise unattainable? This paper offers a conceptual analysis of consciousness attributions to AI chatbots and develops a multidimensional taxonomy of the attitudes they may express, ranging from non-doxastic stances (e.g., pretence) to different forms of belief, including delusions. This taxonomy helps avoid conflations by showing that linguistically identical attributions can reflect importantly different attitudes and degrees of epistemic commitment to the proposition that chatbots are conscious. The taxonomy also provides a framework for empirical studies to operationalize and measure different forms of epistemic commitment to AI consciousness. Using this taxonomy, I argue that although some consciousness attributions to chatbots are epistemically benign, and even some irrational ones may be epistemically innocent, many others render the attributor epistemically blameworthy.

Agentic systems increasingly rely on language models to monitor their own behavior. For example, coding agents may self critique generated code for pull request approval or assess the safety of tool-use actions. We show that this design pattern can fail when the action is presented in a previous or in the same assistant turn instead of being presented by the user in a user turn. We define self-attribution bias as the tendency of a model to evaluate an action as more correct or less risky when the action is implicitly framed as its own, compared to when the same action is evaluated under off-policy attribution. Across four coding and tool-use datasets, we find that monitors fail to report high-risk or low-correctness actions more often when evaluation follows a previous assistant turn in which the action was generated, compared to when the same action is evaluated in a new context presented in a user turn. In contrast, explicitly stating that the action comes from the monitor does not by itself induce self-attribution bias. Because monitors are often evaluated on fixed examples rather than on their own generated actions, these evaluations can make monitors appear more reliable than they actually are in deployment, leading developers to unknowingly deploy inadequate monitors in agentic systems.

The rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into everyday workflows has transformed how individuals perform cognitive tasks such as writing, programming, analysis, and multilingual communication. While prior research has focused on model reliability, hallucination, and user trust calibration, less attention has been given to how LLM usage reshapes users' perceptions of their own capabilities. This paper introduces the LLM fallacy, a cognitive attribution error in which individuals misinterpret LLM-assisted outputs as evidence of their own independent competence, producing a systematic divergence between perceived and actual capability. We argue that the opacity, fluency, and low-friction interaction patterns of LLMs obscure the boundary between human and machine contribution, leading users to infer competence from outputs rather than from the processes that generate them. We situate the LLM fallacy within existing literature on automation bias, cognitive offloading, and human-AI collaboration, while distinguishing it as a form of attributional distortion specific to AI-mediated workflows. We propose a conceptual framework of its underlying mechanisms and a typology of manifestations across computational, linguistic, analytical, and creative domains. Finally, we examine implications for education, hiring, and AI literacy, and outline directions for empirical validation. We also provide a transparent account of human-AI collaborative methodology. This work establishes a foundation for understanding how generative AI systems not only augment cognitive performance but also reshape self-perception and perceived expertise.