The LLM Fallacy: Misattribution in AI-Assisted Cognitive Workflows

Large Language Models (LLMs) represent one of the most significant advances in AI and natural language processing in recent years. Still, many pressing questions about their mechanisms, capabilities, and relationship to human cognition remain highly debated. This chapter aims to outline our current understanding of LLMs by discussing recent evidence on emerging capabilities and their mechanistic implementation within processing layers. We begin with a concise overview of the Transformer architecture, emphasizing how the attention mechanism enables training on massive datasets, allowing LLMs to function as generalist rather than specialized models. Next, we examine emergent LLM capabilities that appear to resemble aspects of human cognition, including symbolic reasoning, theory of mind, and deception strategies. Several studies provide evidence that LLMs can solve tasks previously thought to require human-like cognition. Other studies reveal insightful failure cases that shed light on the differences between human and LLM cognition. Alongside these findings, we review explainable AI approaches ranging from neuron activation analysis to circuit tracing. In the final section, we address current debates concerning what LLMs genuinely understand versus what they merely appear to understand. Prominent arguments against AI anthropomorphism point to the simplicity of LLM training objectives, claiming that LLM behavior is better explained by pattern memorization of training data than by genuine cognition. We argue that this standpoint is guided by misconceptions about optimization processes and cognitive capacity, and advocate for a more nuanced discussion of LLM cognition that neither dismisses the differences between humans and LLMs nor precludes the possibility of AI cognition through overly simplistic reductionist arguments.

LLMs are increasingly presented as collaborators in programming, design, writing, and analysis. Yet the practical experience of working with them often falls short of this promise. In many settings, users must diagnose misunderstandings, reconstruct missing assumptions, and repeatedly repair misaligned responses. This poster introduces a conceptual framework for understanding why such collaboration remains fragile. Drawing on a constructivist grounded theory analysis of 16 interviews with designers, developers, and applied AI practitioners working on LLM-enabled systems, and informed by literature on human-AI collaboration, we argue that stable collaboration depends not only on model capability but on the interaction's grounding conditions. We distinguish three recurrent structures of human-AI work: one-shot assistance, weak collaboration with asymmetric repair, and grounded collaboration. We propose that collaboration breaks down when the appearance of partnership outpaces the grounding capacity of the interaction and contribute a framework for discussing grounding, repair, and interaction structure in LLM-enabled work.

Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources. We ask whether this asymmetry reflects a capability deficit or a role-label artifact: does an agent's willingness to correct a wrong claim depend causally on the chat-template role that carries it, rather than on the claim's content? Our setup keeps the erroneous claim byte-identical across all conditions (SHA-256 verified) and varies only its wrapping role: the agent's own \role{<thought>}, a \role{user} message, a \role{tool} response, or a \role{system <memory>} block. Across 13 model-domain cells covering seven model families and three domains ($n{=}30$ paired tasks per cell), relabeling the claim from \role{<thought>} to an external role lifts the explicit-correction rate by 23 to 93 percentage points, with 10 of 13 cells reaching $p{<}0.001$. Further experiments confirm that the effect is asymmetric, mechanistically decomposable, and robust across domains. The failure to self-correct is not a cognitive deficit; it is a chat-template artifact. We exploit this artifact by designing a prompt-structure-only intervention that requires no training and no model modification, with its strongest role label being domain-dependent: \role{<memory>} dominates on math, while a plain \role{user} message dominates on logical deduction.