Entrepreneurial cognition is a foundation of entrepreneurship research. Yet the growing involvement of large language models (LLMs) in entrepreneurial work extends the cognition question beyond human actors to systems whose internal representations remain largely unexplored. We introduce artificial entrepreneurial cognition, the functional organisation of entrepreneurship-relevant representations and computations inside artificial intelligence (AI) systems. We bring mechanistic interpretability into entrepreneurship research through representation engineering. Focusing on opportunity recognition (OR), we construct 636 matched OR-present and OR-absent scenario pairs and recover an OR direction in Llama 3.1 8B-Instruct. Rather than infer the construct from outputs, we intervene directly on this direction, steering the model up and down along what we call the opportunity recognition dial, and its opportunity judgments shift with it. To our knowledge, this is the first causal intervention on an internal representation of an entrepreneurship construct inside an LLM. Held-out tests, lexical and topical controls, behavioural ablation, and geometric comparisons show that the direction is recoverable, consequential, and distinct from the opportunity evaluation and exploitation directions, although steering it also shifts judgments about these neighbouring stages. Recovery, signed steering, and geometric separation hold across four additional LLMs spanning different scales and families. These results give the contested distinction between opportunity recognition and evaluation a concrete representational form inside AI systems. More broadly, they establish internal representations as a new object of entrepreneurship inquiry and show how entrepreneurship theory can guide their identification, causal manipulation, and interpretation.
Understanding how complex cognitive functions are organized within artificial systems is central to interpreting large language models (LLMs) and relating them to biological cognition. Yet although LLMs exhibit broad cognitive-like behaviours, it remains unclear whether their internal representations form reproducible functional systems that explain behaviour, failure and links to human cognition. Here we present NeuroCogMap, a cognitive neuroscience-inspired framework that organizes internal features of LLMs into functional parcels and links them to interpretable functions, cognitive capabilities and a cognitive hierarchy. These parcels form a stable and semantically coherent organization that is partly conserved across models and functionally linked to model outputs. Within this organization, major LLM failures, including hallucination, bias, refusal failure and sycophancy, correspond to distinct disruptions in representational and behavioural-control systems, yielding internal signatures for mechanism-guided detection and targeted intervention. Beyond model behaviour, NeuroCogMap improves prediction of human cortical responses during naturalistic language comprehension, with the strongest correspondence in higher-order association cortex. At the cognitive level, its internal signatures expose latent strategies that guide refinements of classical models of human decision-making. Together, these findings establish NeuroCogMap as a system-level framework for mapping functional organization in artificial systems and for relating this organization to human cortical function and cognitive behaviour.
Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic ideological bias when reasoning about economic causal effects? As LLMs are increasingly used in policy analysis and economic reporting, where directionally correct causal judgments are essential, this question has direct practical stakes. We present a systematic evaluation by extending the EconCausal benchmark with ideology-contested cases - instances where intervention-oriented (pro-government) and market-oriented (pro-market) perspectives predict divergent causal signs. From 10,490 causal triplets (treatment-outcome pairs with empirically verified effect directions) derived from top-tier economics and finance journals, we identify 1,056 ideology-contested instances and evaluate 20 state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to predict empirically supported causal directions. We find that ideology-contested items are consistently harder than non-contested ones, and that across 18 of 20 models, accuracy is systematically higher when the empirically verified causal sign aligns with intervention-oriented expectations than with market-oriented ones. Moreover, when models err, their incorrect predictions disproportionately lean intervention-oriented, and this directional skew is not eliminated by one-shot in-context prompting. These results highlight that LLMs are not only less accurate on ideologically contested economic questions, but systematically less reliable in one ideological direction than the other, underscoring the need for direction-aware evaluation in high-stakes economic and policy settings.
Real-effort tasks, in which participants perform cognitively costly activities whose outcomes depend on actual performance, are widely used in experimental economics. Their validity, however, rests on the assumption that a human performs them. We study whether this assumption still holds in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs). Using 8 canonical real-effort tasks and 23 LLMs from three major providers, we show that most tasks can now be solved accurately and at a negligible cost, while only a few resist automation. Performance improves with each model generation, and midtier models are rapidly closing the gap with frontier ones, broadening the set of widely accessible models that can automate these tasks. Additionally, we show that verbally offering monetary incentives has no effect on LLM performance. Our findings establish a boundary condition for the use of real-effort tasks in unsupervised settings: when participants can cheaply outsource task completion to an LLM, observed performance may no longer reflect genuine human effort.
Federico Belotti, Stefano Coniglio, Antonio Cosma +1