This paper examines the extent to which large language models (LLMs) are able to perform tasks which require higher-order theory of mind (ToM)—the human ability to reason about multiple mental and emotional states in a recursive manner (e.g., I think that you believe that she knows). This paper builds on prior work by introducing a handwritten test suite—Multi-Order Theory of Mind Q&A—and using it to compare the performance of five LLMs of varying sizes and training paradigms to a newly gathered adult human benchmark. We find that GPT-4 and Flan-PaLM reach adult-level and near adult-level performance on our ToM tasks overall, and that GPT-4 exceeds adult performance on 6th order inferences. Our results suggest that there is an interplay between model size and finetuning for higher-order ToM performance, and that the linguistic abilities of large models may support more complex ToM inferences. Given the important role that higher-order ToM plays in group social interaction and relationships, these findings have significant implications for the development of a broad range of social, educational and assistive LLM applications.

Credences are mental states corresponding to degrees of confidence in propositions. Attribution of credences to Large Language Models (LLMs) is commonplace in the empirical literature on LLM evaluation. Yet the theoretical basis for LLM credence attribution is unclear. We defend three claims. First, our semantic claim is that LLM credence attributions are (at least in general) correctly interpreted literally, as expressing truth-apt beliefs on the part of scientists that purport to describe facts about LLM credences. Second, our metaphysical claim is that the existence of LLM credences is at least plausible, although current evidence is inconclusive. Third, our epistemic claim is that LLM credence attributions made in the empirical literature on LLM evaluation are subject to non-trivial sceptical concerns. It is a distinct possibility that even if LLMs have credences, LLM credence attributions are generally false because the experimental techniques used to assess LLM credences are not truth-tracking. Our analysis has implications for the assessment of LLMs for properties like factuality and trustworthiness, and the broader scientific debate over the use of human cognition as a blueprint for understanding LLM behaviour.

This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders.

Large language models (LLMs) are transforming human-computer interaction and conceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) with their impressive capacities for conversing and reasoning in natural language. There is growing interest in whether LLMs have theory of mind (ToM); the ability to reason about the mental and emotional states of others that is core to human social intelligence. As LLMs are integrated into the fabric of our personal, professional and social lives and given greater agency to make decisions with real-world consequences, there is a critical need to understand how they can be aligned with human values. ToM seems to be a promising direction of inquiry in this regard. Following the literature on the role and impacts of human ToM, this paper identifies key areas in which LLM ToM will show up in human:LLM interactions at individual and group levels, and what opportunities and risks for alignment are raised in each. On the individual level, the paper considers how LLM ToM might manifest in goal specification, conversational adaptation, empathy and anthropomorphism. On the group level, it considers how LLM ToM might facilitate collective alignment, cooperation or competition, and moral judgement-making. The paper lays out a broad spectrum of potential implications and suggests the most pressing areas for future research.

Pleasure and pain play an important role in human decision making by providing a common currency for resolving motivational conflicts. While Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate detailed descriptions of pleasure and pain experiences, it is an open question whether LLMs can recreate the motivational force of pleasure and pain in choice scenarios - a question which may bear on debates about LLM sentience, understood as the capacity for valenced experiential states. We probed this question using a simple game in which the stated goal is to maximise points, but where either the points-maximising option is said to incur a pain penalty or a non-points-maximising option is said to incur a pleasure reward, providing incentives to deviate from points-maximising behaviour. Varying the intensity of the pain penalties and pleasure rewards, we found that Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Command R+, GPT-4o, and GPT-4o mini each demonstrated at least one trade-off in which the majority of responses switched from points-maximisation to pain-minimisation or pleasure-maximisation after a critical threshold of stipulated pain or pleasure intensity is reached. LLaMa 3.1-405b demonstrated some graded sensitivity to stipulated pleasure rewards and pain penalties. Gemini 1.5 Pro and PaLM 2 prioritised pain-avoidance over points-maximisation regardless of intensity, while tending to prioritise points over pleasure regardless of intensity. We discuss the implications of these findings for debates about the possibility of LLM sentience.