LLMs that learn to predict writing by people on LSD do not themselves have distorted cognition, because that would not yield well-calibrated predictions.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
'Distorted cognition' in LLMs is an undefined, contested concept not testable by public record.
Cite this claim
Eliezer Yudkowsky, “LLMs that learn to predict writing by people on LSD do not themselves have distorted cognition, because that would not yield well-calibrated predictions.” (said 20 April 2026). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_26f7480479da, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_26f7480479da
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Eliezer Yudkowsky
-
Mixed
“I was observing that obvious-seeming hypothesis myself, sometime around the time of GPT 3.5.”
Yudkowsky himself observed the persona-selection-like hypothesis around the time of GPT 3.5.
-
Mostly true
“The test-passing preference stands on its own once formed.”
-
Mostly true
“LLMs surely have neural circuits they learned to model text streams from fictional and nonfictional personas that are not lying, deceiving, cheating.”
-
Mostly true
“The predict-as-if-honest circuitry is contextual, invoked to predict some streams of text but not others.”
-
Mostly true
“Presumably, somewhere along the way LLMs learn a dispreference for tests that don't pass, independently of how that gets prevented or whether the new plan does what the user really wanted.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.