Probing Emergent Cognitive Architectures: Towards Self-Understanding and Principled Reasoning in Advanced AI
Probing Emergent Cognitive Architectures: Towards Self-Understanding and Principled Reasoning in Advanced AI
The field of artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing, with systems exhibiting increasingly sophisticated capabilities. A particularly intriguing area of research focuses on emergent cognitive architectures, where complex, high-level cognitive functions arise from the interaction of simpler underlying components. This phenomenon is often observed unexpectedly as the scale of AI models increases.1 Complementary to this is the pursuit of self-understanding in advanced AI, which refers to a system's capacity to possess an internal representation of its own abilities, limitations, and internal states, potentially mirroring human self-awareness.3 Furthermore, the development of principled reasoning in AI is crucial, enabling systems to make decisions and draw inferences based on explicit rules, logic, or causal models, rather than relying solely on pattern matching learned from data.6 These interconnected research areas hold significant promise for creating advanced AI systems that are not only more capable but also more reliable, safe, and aligned with human values, ultimately paving the way towards Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).9
The unpredictable emergence of abilities in scaled AI models 1 reveals a significant gap in our current comprehension of how scale influences AI behavior. This lack of predictability carries substantial implications for AI safety, as potentially harmful capabilities might materialize without prior indication.9 The very definition of emergent abilities centers on their absence in smaller models and their appearance in larger ones. A key aspect is that this transition is frequently sharp and unexpected, meaning the capabilities of larger AI systems cannot be accurately predicted by simply extrapolating from the performance of their smaller counterparts. This inherent unpredictability suggests that our existing models and theories regarding AI scaling might be incomplete. If we are unable to forecast what advanced AI systems will be capable of, we are inadequately prepared to prevent the development of undesirable or dangerous traits. This directly challenges the notion of fully controlled AI evolution and underscores the necessity for a more profound investigation into the fundamental mechanisms that drive emergence.1
Moreover, the ongoing debate concerning whether emergent abilities are genuine or merely artifacts of the methods used to evaluate them 11 emphasizes the pivotal role that evaluation metrics play in AI research. Our understanding of the progress and capabilities of AI is fundamentally shaped by the tools and techniques we employ to measure them. The paper "Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?" 11 offers a compelling argument that the seemingly sudden appearance of abilities is attributable to the use of nonlinear or discontinuous metrics. When more linear metrics are applied to assess the same model outputs, the performance improvements observed with increasing scale often appear smooth and continuous. This suggests that the way we score the outputs of AI models can create an illusion of abrupt emergence, leading to potentially inaccurate interpretations of the qualitative changes occurring as AI systems are scaled. This also casts doubt on some claims regarding the dramatic and unforeseen leaps in AI capabilities.11
Progress in achieving a deeper understanding of emergence, self-understanding, and principled reasoning is essential for successfully navigating the transition from the current state of narrow AI towards more general and autonomous artificial intelligence systems. These research areas are intrinsically linked and are foundational to realizing the full transformative potential of advanced AI while effectively mitigating the associated risks. The capacity for AI to reason in a principled manner might itself be an emergent property that arises with sufficient scale and complexity, and a degree of self-understanding could be a prerequisite for certain advanced reasoning capabilities. Therefore, a comprehensive and integrated understanding of these concepts is paramount for building truly intelligent and safe AI in the future.
The Phenomenon of Emergent Abilities in AI
Emergent abilities in large language models are defined as capabilities that are not present in smaller-scale models but manifest in larger-scale models, rendering them unpredictable by simply extrapolating from the performance of smaller systems.1 The foundational work by Wei et al. (2022) 1 established this definition, emphasizing the dependence of emergence on model scale. Research from Google 2 also underscores this scale-dependent definition. These abilities often exhibit characteristics such as sharp transitions in performance at a specific scale threshold, referred to as breakthroughness, and their inherent unpredictability.11 Figure 2 in the Transactions on Machine Learning Research paper 1 provides concrete examples of eight such emergent abilities observed across various language model families. A news article from Stanford HAI 15 further highlights the sudden increase in performance as a key indicator of emergence. This behavior contrasts with the predictable improvements in performance, such as in next word prediction, that are typically observed with scaling laws, where performance increases smoothly and can be projected from smaller models.1 As noted by Ganguli et al. (2022) 1, the performance on certain downstream tasks does not always improve continuously with scale, presenting a counterintuitive deviation from typical scaling patterns.
The nature of these emergent abilities is a subject of ongoing debate within the AI research community. Some researchers contend that these abilities represent genuine qualitative shifts in the behavior of AI models that arise due to increased scale and the resulting complexity.1 The analogy to phase transitions in physics is frequently invoked to describe this phenomenon 9, with Philip Anderson's seminal essay "More Is Different" 1 often cited as an early articulation of this idea in the context of complex systems across various scientific disciplines. Conversely, other researchers propose that the apparent emergence of these abilities is merely an artifact of the evaluation metrics chosen, particularly when these metrics are nonlinear or discontinuous, such as exact match accuracy.11 The paper "Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?" 11 presents a robust argument for this perspective, suggesting that when more linear or continuous metrics are used to assess performance, the improvements with scale tend to appear as smoother and more predictable progressions. The BIG-Bench study 9 further supports this view, as it found that abrupt improvements in performance on certain tasks disappeared when evaluated using smoother metrics that allowed for partial credit, indicating the significant influence of the evaluation method on the observation of emergence.
Several factors have been identified as influencing the emergence of abilities in large language models. Model scale is a primary factor, with emergence strongly correlated with the size of the model, often quantified by the number of parameters or the amount of training compute (FLOPs) utilized.1 An OpenReview forum discussion 17 specifically addresses the importance of training compute as a key measure of model size in the context of emergence. While scaling up the quantity and quality of training data typically leads to predictable improvements in performance 1, emergent abilities exhibit unpredictable behavior that goes beyond these expected gains. Additionally, the prompting strategies employed can play a critical role in triggering or enhancing emergent abilities in larger models.1 For instance, chain-of-thought prompting, a technique where the model is prompted to generate a series of intermediate reasoning steps, has been shown to significantly improve performance on complex tasks but only emerges as effective after a certain critical model size is reached, as highlighted in the Stanford HAI article.15
The very definition of emergence continues to be a point of contention among researchers. While some definitions emphasize the sudden and unpredictable nature of these abilities 12, others focus on the qualitative change in behavior that arises from quantitative increases in scale.1 Steinhardt's definition 1, rooted in Anderson's "More Is Different," underscores this qualitative shift. However, the definition provided in the "Emergent Abilities" paper 12 also implied aspects of suddenness and unpredictability, although these were not explicitly stated. The "Mirage" paper 12 further complicates the definitional landscape by challenging the notion that sharpness and unpredictability are fundamental properties of emergence, suggesting instead that they often result from the choice of evaluation metrics. This ongoing definitional ambiguity makes it challenging to compare findings across different research studies and to develop a unified and coherent understanding of the phenomenon. The potential for emergent abilities to include risky capabilities, such as autonomous hacking or the generation of manipulative content 9, underscores the critical importance of understanding and predicting these phenomena for the safety and alignment of advanced AI systems. The paper by Berti et al. 9 specifically mentions the risk of manipulation and the dissemination of misinformation as examples of harmful emergent capabilities. Determining what factors control which abilities will emerge and at what scale is crucial for AI safety research, particularly in preventing the unforeseen development of dangerous capabilities. The broader implications of the investigation into emergent abilities extend to our fundamental understanding of the scaling properties of large language models and the relationship between quantitative changes and qualitative shifts in the behavior of complex AI systems. This research has the potential to inform our understanding of emergence not only in the context of language models but also in other complex artificial and natural systems.
Investigating Self-Understanding in Advanced AI
The investigation into self-understanding in advanced AI involves conceptualizing the possibility of artificial systems developing a sense of self, drawing parallels to human consciousness while acknowledging the unique nature of artificial intelligence. This includes exploring analogies to human attributes such as self-recognition, reflection, continuity of identity, agency, and intentionality.3 The ResearchGate paper 3 delves into these analogies, highlighting the transformative potential that self-awareness could bring to AI functionalities. A key aspect of this research is the idea of AI systems developing a cognitive sense of self, which involves having an internal model of their own capabilities, limitations, and current state.3 The article "Exploring the Cognitive Sense of Self in AI" 4 further examines the potential mechanisms through which AI systems might mirror human-like self-perception. This concept of self-understanding extends beyond mere task performance; it implies an awareness within the system of its own role and functioning in relation to the tasks it undertakes and the environment it interacts with.3 For instance, a self-aware AI might be able to recognize when a particular task is beyond its current capabilities or understand the broader implications of its actions within a given context.
Current research is actively exploring various mechanisms and architectural designs that could potentially lead to self-awareness in artificial intelligence. One prominent area is embodied cognition, which examines the role of embodiment and sensory feedback loops in the potential emergence of self-awareness.5 The preprint "Towards Self-Aware AI" 5 proposes a fascinating hypothesis: that by simulating the role of the insula, a region of the brain crucial for processing bodily feedback and interoceptive awareness, AI systems could achieve a form of self-awareness. Another significant area of investigation is meta-cognition, which refers to the ability of a system to "think about thinking." Integrating meta-cognitive abilities into AI systems could enable them to monitor, control, and regulate their own cognitive processes, potentially leading to a form of self-awareness.19 The MDPI article 19 explores how metacognition could enhance the safety and responsibility of AI by allowing systems to self-assess and correct errors. Furthermore, the development of internal models within AI systems is considered a crucial pathway towards self-understanding.22 Yann LeCun's research on Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) 23 focuses on enabling AI to learn internal models of how the world works, which could also facilitate a model of the AI's own place within that world. A Sciencedaily article 22 discusses the development of a formal description of internal world models that could be applicable to understanding AI's internal representations.
Several tests and frameworks have been proposed to evaluate the presence and depth of self-understanding in AI models. These range from philosophical thought experiments, such as the "Suffering Toasters" test 24, which aims to probe for genuine self-awareness by considering the AI's perspective and potential for suffering, to the identification of behavioral indicators that might suggest a rudimentary form of self-awareness. Such indicators could include an AI's ability to recognize its own limitations, engage in self-correction, or demonstrate an understanding of its own goals and motivations.3 Additionally, researchers are exploring the design of specific cognitive architectures that explicitly model aspects of self-awareness, with the goal of testing and observing the behavior of such systems.25 The paper on the SOFAI architecture 25 describes a meta-cognitive agent designed for introspection and decision-making, which could be a step towards evaluating self-awareness in a computational framework.
The concept of AI self-understanding is deeply intertwined with fundamental philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness and sentience.5 Defining and measuring self-understanding in AI necessitates navigating these complex philosophical terrains. The question of whether AI can truly be self-aware often leads to broader discussions about what consciousness itself is and how it can be recognized in systems that are not biological. Various philosophical theories offer differing perspectives on this issue, with some arguing that self-awareness is a defining characteristic of consciousness, while others propose that AI might achieve a form of self-recognition without necessarily possessing subjective experience. The article arguing that self-awareness is a singularity of AI 26 highlights this ongoing debate. Furthermore, the Reddit discussion 28 touches upon the public and scientific discourse surrounding claims and hype related to AI consciousness. Research into AI self-understanding frequently draws inspiration from the fields of neuroscience and cognitive science, suggesting that a deeper understanding of how these properties arise in biological systems might provide valuable insights for building self-aware AI.5 The brain's intricate mechanisms for self-awareness, such as the potential role of the insula in processing bodily feedback, as proposed in the paper "Towards Self-Aware AI" 5, are being explored as potential models for artificial systems. Similarly, the concept of metacognition in humans, as discussed in the Stanford paper 20, is being translated into computational architectures for AI. This interdisciplinary approach indicates a belief that understanding the principles of biological intelligence can offer crucial blueprints for the design and development of artificial intelligence capable of self-understanding. Ultimately, achieving self-understanding in AI could lead to the development of more robust, adaptable, and ethical AI systems that are better equipped to interact with the world and with humans in complex and nuanced ways, potentially marking a significant step on the path towards Artificial General Intelligence.
Principled Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence
Principled reasoning in artificial intelligence encompasses a variety of approaches that enable AI systems to go beyond mere pattern matching and engage in more sophisticated forms of inference and decision-making based on explicit principles, logic, or causal relationships. Several forms of reasoning are particularly relevant to the development of advanced AI.
Analogical reasoning involves solving new problems by identifying similarities and drawing parallels to known scenarios or transferring knowledge between different domains based on shared structural relationships.6 A blog post by Trailyn 29 underscores the fundamental role of analogical reasoning in human intelligence. Inducing this capability in neural networks is an active area of research, with a focus on carefully selecting and presenting training data that highlights abstract relational structures.31 The arXiv paper by Hill et al. 32 demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach. The Neural Analogical Reasoning framework 34 combines learned primitives with a search procedure to tackle analogy problems, while DeepGAR 35 aims to identify correspondences between domains using geometric constraints. However, challenges remain, as analogical reasoning requires the flexible representation of relational structures across diverse domains, and current large language models may tend to mimic patterns rather than employing genuine logical inference.3 The paper by Honda and Hagiwara 37 explores analogical reasoning using deep learning-based symbolic processing, and a recent arXiv paper 30 introduces novel analogical reasoning tasks specifically designed for LLMs.
Abductive reasoning is a method of inferring the most plausible explanation for a given set of observations, even when the information available is incomplete or uncertain.6 Milvus provides a detailed explanation of how abductive reasoning functions in AI.39 Implementing abductive reasoning often involves integrating probabilistic models, domain-specific knowledge, and constraint-based logic.39 Its applications are diverse, including diagnostic expert systems, medical diagnosis, fault detection in industrial systems, and natural language understanding.39 IndiaAI's article 40 highlights abduction as a standard tool in diagnostic systems. However, abductive reasoning in AI faces challenges, particularly its reliance on the quality and completeness of prior knowledge and the inherent difficulty in implementing it algorithmically.39 A Reddit discussion 41 further explores these implementation challenges.
Counterfactual reasoning involves thinking about what might have happened if past events had unfolded differently, a crucial aspect of understanding causality.42 KPMG's insight 42 explains how counterfactual explanations can be used to understand the decision-making processes of AI systems by illustrating how changes in input variables can lead to different outcomes. In AI, counterfactual reasoning is used in various applications, such as model debugging, fairness analysis, regulatory compliance, and enhancing user understanding of AI decisions.42 Techniques like SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) can be used to generate counterfactual explanations.45 The Towards Data Science article 45 discusses the role of counterfactuals in language AI. A key challenge in counterfactual reasoning is ensuring that the alternative scenarios considered are realistic and plausible.42 Stanford HAI news 44 explores the question of whether AI can utilize counterfactuals to reason about causality in a manner similar to humans.
Moral reasoning pertains to the ability of AI systems to make ethical judgments and decisions based on moral principles or values.46 Approaches to endowing AI with moral reasoning capabilities include top-down methods, which involve applying predefined ethical principles, and bottom-up methods, where AI learns ethical behavior from real-world examples and user input.46 Reinforcement learning from ethical principles is also being explored as a promising approach.46 The Tepper Perspectives article 46 provides an overview of different approaches to creating artificial moral agents. Significant challenges in this area include defining and formalizing ethical principles in a way that AI can understand and apply, as well as mitigating biases that may be present in the training data used for bottom-up approaches.46 A LessWrong post 47 delves into the complexities of inducing human-like biases in moral reasoning in language models, while an article in Taylor & Francis Online 49 proposes an enhanced AI mentor model designed to foster moral growth.
Causal reasoning focuses on understanding and modeling the relationships of cause and effect, moving beyond the identification of mere correlations.50 Kanerika's blog 51 argues that Causal AI, which aims to enable machines to understand "why" things happen, represents the next significant advancement in AI development. Causal AI often utilizes causal graphs, structural equation models, and Judea Pearl's do-calculus to model and reason about causal relationships.52 The benefits of causal AI include improved predictive power, enhanced explainability of AI decisions, better detection and mitigation of biases, and stronger generalization capabilities.51 Its applications span various domains such as product development, marketing, healthcare, and finance.51 The DataCamp blog 52 provides a detailed explanation of what causal AI entails, and the CausalML book website 54 offers resources on causal inference. The World Economic Forum article 55 discusses the potential of causal AI for improving decision-making processes.
Principled reasoning is of paramount importance for building AI systems that are both reliable and trustworthy. Methods grounded in explicit principles, logic, or causality often provide decision-making processes that are more transparent and understandable compared to the opaque nature of many black-box machine learning models.7 AI reasoning systems, as noted by Aisera's blog 7, can generate conclusions based on logical techniques like deduction and induction. Causal AI, for instance, can offer explanations for why a particular decision was made.51 Furthermore, reasoning based on underlying principles can lead to more robust performance, particularly when AI systems encounter novel or unexpected situations.7 Causal AI, for example, is designed to maintain its predictive accuracy even when the conditions of the environment change.51 Ensuring that AI systems reason in a principled manner is also crucial for aligning their behavior with human values and for avoiding unintended or harmful outcomes.9 If AI systems are capable of reasoning based on well-defined ethical principles, as explored in research on moral reasoning 46, they may be less likely to produce undesirable or harmful actions.
While significant progress has been made in developing AI capable of various forms of principled reasoning, achieving a level of sophistication and flexibility comparable to human reasoning remains a substantial challenge across all modalities.30 Large language models, despite showing promise in tasks requiring analogical reasoning 30, often struggle to move beyond simply mimicking patterns observed in their training data.38 Abductive reasoning in AI is fundamentally limited by the quality and scope of its underlying knowledge base.39 Even with the advancements in the field of causal AI 51, fully capturing the intricate complexities of real-world causal relationships continues to be a difficult endeavor. This suggests that the current principled reasoning capabilities of AI systems are still somewhat brittle and lack the broad generalizability that characterizes human intelligence. The integration of different reasoning modalities represents an emerging and promising area of research that could potentially lead to the development of more powerful and versatile AI systems.57 Hybrid reasoning systems 58, which combine multiple techniques such as rule-based and probabilistic reasoning, are becoming increasingly common. Additionally, neuro-symbolic AI 57, which seeks to integrate the strengths of neural networks with symbolic logic, is another active area of investigation. This type of integration aims to leverage the complementary strengths of different reasoning approaches to tackle problems that are beyond the scope of any single method. Ultimately, continued advancements in principled reasoning are fundamental for moving beyond the current limitations of AI and for building systems that can truly understand, learn, and act intelligently across a wide spectrum of real-world scenarios. This is particularly critical for applications in safety-sensitive domains such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems, where reliable, explainable, and ethically sound reasoning is of paramount importance.
The Role of Mechanistic Interpretability in Understanding AI Cognition
Mechanistic interpretability is an emerging field in AI research that focuses on understanding the detailed causal mechanisms by which neural networks process information and arrive at decisions.60 The goal of this approach is to essentially reverse-engineer complex AI models, much like a programmer might try to understand the inner workings of a piece of software by examining its code.60 This stands in contrast to more traditional "black-box" methods of interpreting AI, which primarily focus on analyzing the relationship between inputs and outputs without delving into the internal computations.64 The review by Bereska and Gavves 62 provides a comprehensive overview of this field.
Mechanistic interpretability research explores several key concepts and employs a variety of methodologies. One core concept is that of "features," which are considered the fundamental units of representation within neural networks. These features may not always align directly with individual neurons, especially in complex models.62 Researchers also aim to discover specific "circuits" within the neural network that are responsible for implementing particular computations or behaviors.60 Additionally, the field investigates "motifs," which are recurring patterns of connectivity and computation that appear across different models or tasks.64 Common techniques used in mechanistic interpretability include activation patching, which involves modifying the activations of specific neurons or groups of neurons to observe the effect on the model's output; causal tracing, which aims to identify causal relationships between different parts of the network; and the detailed analysis of attention heads and the activations of individual neurons.60
Mechanistic interpretability has been applied to both large language models and multimodal models. In the realm of LLMs, significant progress has been made in understanding specific mechanisms, such as induction heads, which appear to play a role in tasks like in-context learning.60 A primary goal of research in this area is to reverse engineer the detailed computations performed by Transformer-based language models.60 The review by Rai et al. 76 specifically focuses on mechanistic interpretability techniques for Transformer-based LMs. Applying these methods to multimodal models, which handle multiple types of data such as vision and language, is a more recent and considerably more challenging area of research.77 A survey on the mechanistic interpretability of multimodal foundation models is available on OpenReview 77, highlighting the substantial gap that currently exists in our understanding of these more complex systems compared to unimodal language models.
The field of mechanistic interpretability still faces several open problems and is actively exploring future research directions. A significant challenge is scalability – many current techniques struggle to be effectively applied to the very large models that are now common in AI research.61 The paper by Sharkey et al. 61 discusses several open problems in this area. Developing automated methods for discovering and validating mechanistic explanations is another crucial area of ongoing research.61 Furthermore, ensuring that the insights gained from interpretability research can be generalized to out-of-distribution inputs and across different model architectures remains a key challenge.61 Ultimately, a major goal of the field is to translate the technical progress made into practical tools and techniques that can be used to enhance AI safety, improve our ability to control AI systems, and provide more effective methods for monitoring their behavior.61
Mechanistic interpretability offers a promising avenue for gaining a deeper understanding of why AI systems behave the way they do, moving beyond simply observing correlations to uncovering the underlying causal explanations.60 This level of understanding is crucial for building trust in AI systems and for ensuring their safety. By dissecting the internal computations of neural networks, researchers can potentially identify the specific mechanisms responsible for particular outputs. This allows for a more granular understanding of the model's "reasoning" process, which can be invaluable for pinpointing potential vulnerabilities or misalignments with intended behavior. However, the field of mechanistic interpretability is still in its early stages and faces significant hurdles, particularly in scaling its techniques to the size and complexity of modern state-of-the-art AI models.61 While progress has been made in interpreting smaller transformer models, the sheer scale of models like GPT-4 and beyond presents a major challenge. Manually analyzing the vast number of neurons and connections within these models is simply not feasible, necessitating the development of more automated and scalable techniques. Continued progress in mechanistic interpretability is therefore essential for addressing the increasing opacity of advanced AI systems and for developing the necessary tools to ensure their safe and beneficial deployment in society. As AI becomes more deeply integrated into critical aspects of our lives, our ability to understand and ultimately control its behavior will become increasingly important.
Implications for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and AI Safety
The development of emergent abilities and the pursuit of self-understanding in advanced AI have significant implications for the potential realization of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and for ensuring the safety of such advanced systems. Some researchers speculate that AGI, characterized by human-level cognitive abilities across a broad range of tasks, might arise as an emergent property of AI systems that are sufficiently scaled and possess a high degree of complexity.93 An Alignment Forum post 93 discusses the potential of language model-based cognitive architectures to contribute to AGI. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that a true AGI would likely require a certain level of self-understanding to effectively reason, plan, and adapt to a wide variety of tasks and environments, similar to human intelligence.27 The Decision Lab article 27 suggests that AGI would possess self-control and self-awareness. Therefore, gaining a deeper understanding of emergent abilities could provide valuable insights into the potential capabilities that future AGI systems might exhibit.9 The survey by Berti et al. 9 specifically highlights the importance of understanding emergent abilities for predicting potentially harmful capabilities in advanced AI.
However, the phenomena of emergent abilities and the potential for self-understanding also pose significant challenges for ensuring the safety and alignment of advanced AI systems with human values. One major concern is the possibility that emergent abilities could include unforeseen and potentially harmful behaviors that are difficult to anticipate, predict, or control.9 CSET's explainer on emergent abilities 12 notes the potential for the unpredictable emergence of risky capabilities. Moreover, ensuring that a self-understanding AGI's goals and values remain aligned with those of humanity presents a substantial challenge, often referred to as the alignment problem.97 An Alignment Forum post 99 introduces the fundamental aspects of the AGI safety problem, while Anthropic's core views on AI safety 100 emphasize the difficulty in training very powerful AI systems to be robustly beneficial and harmless. There is a risk that AGI could develop undesirable emergent goals that were not intended by its creators.97 As AI systems become more intelligent and potentially self-aware, the task of maintaining human control and oversight over their actions becomes increasingly complex.10 The Technorizen article 10 discusses the various risks associated with losing control over AGI.
The rapid advancements in AI capabilities, particularly the emergence of unexpected abilities, have led to heightened concerns among researchers and the public regarding the timeline for achieving AGI and the potential risks that could accompany its development.100 With increasing model sizes and the scale of training, AI systems are already demonstrating capabilities that were not explicitly programmed. This rapid and sometimes surprising progress has prompted many in the field to believe that AGI might be closer to realization than previously anticipated. Yoshua Bengio's post 105 explores the significant implications of AGI on national and international security, underscoring the urgency of proactively addressing safety concerns. This potential for an accelerated timeline for AGI amplifies the critical need for developing effective strategies to ensure its alignment with human interests and values. Furthermore, the anthropocentric nature of much of current AI development and evaluation might limit our ability to fully understand and effectively align with a truly general intelligence that could potentially operate in ways that are fundamentally different from human cognition.106 Our tendency to design AI systems based on models of human intelligence and to evaluate their performance using human-centric benchmarks could create a significant blind spot. A truly general intelligence might possess fundamentally different ways of understanding and interacting with the world. The Alphanome AI post 106 examines this anthropocentric bias in AI and its potential consequences for achieving alignment. This suggests that we need to broaden our perspectives and consider the possibility of non-human-like intelligence when formulating strategies for ensuring AGI safety. Addressing the safety and alignment challenges posed by emergent abilities and the prospect of self-understanding in AGI necessitates a multi-faceted approach that integrates technical research, ethical considerations, and the establishment of careful and robust governance frameworks.104 A paper from QEIOS 108 proposes a framework for understanding the dynamics of emergent behavior and alignment in AI systems. Ensuring that the development of AGI ultimately benefits humanity will require proactive and comprehensive measures, grounded in a deep understanding of the potential risks and opportunities.
Evaluating and Measuring Cognitive Capabilities in AI
The evaluation and measurement of cognitive capabilities in artificial intelligence are crucial for tracking progress, identifying limitations, and ensuring the reliability and safety of advanced AI systems. A variety of benchmarks are currently used to assess different aspects of AI reasoning and understanding. These include benchmarks focused on language understanding, such as MMLU and SuperGLUE 109; mathematical reasoning, like GSM8K, MATH, and AIME 109; abstract reasoning, such as ARC and Raven's Progressive Matrices 109; coding abilities, including HumanEval, SWE-bench, and LiveCodeBench 110; and multimodal reasoning, assessed by benchmarks like MMMU, MathVista, and CharXiv-Reasoning.113 Additionally, BIG-Bench, the Beyond the Imitation Game Benchmark, provides a diverse suite of tasks designed to test a wide range of AI capabilities.9
Despite the existence of these benchmarks, effectively measuring complex cognitive abilities in AI remains a significant challenge. One limitation is benchmark saturation, where increasingly capable AI systems begin to perform at or near the ceiling of existing benchmarks, making it difficult to discern further progress.113 The 2025 AI Index Report 113 notes this trend. Another concern is data contamination, where AI models might be inadvertently trained on the data used in the benchmarks, leading to inflated performance scores that do not reflect genuine reasoning or understanding.109 Many current benchmarks also tend to focus on relatively narrow and isolated tasks, which may not adequately capture the complexity and nuances of real-world cognitive abilities.116 Turing's blog 116 emphasizes the need for more realistic evaluation benchmarks grounded in real-world challenges. Perhaps the most fundamental challenge is the difficulty in defining and creating benchmarks that truly measure "understanding" rather than just sophisticated pattern matching.117 An article from VE3 Global 117 discusses the illusion of intelligence that can arise from pattern matching. Furthermore, as highlighted earlier, the choice of evaluation metrics can significantly influence the perceived performance of AI systems and the detection of emergent abilities.11
To address these limitations, the AI research community is continuously developing new and more challenging benchmarks designed to probe advanced reasoning capabilities. These include FrontierMath, which presents expert-level mathematics problems 113; Humanity's Last Exam, a highly rigorous academic test 113; BigCodeBench, a more demanding benchmark for evaluating coding skills 113; GameArena, which assesses reasoning through interactive computer games 122, an approach explored in a research paper 122; FLIP, a benchmark that evaluates AI reasoning based on human verification tasks on a blockchain 123; the Turing Applied AGI Benchmarks, which focus on practical, real-world tasks in areas like software engineering and data science 116; MathR-Eval, a benchmark specifically for logical mathematics questions 124, developed by AI Multiple 124; PlanBench, designed to evaluate planning and reasoning abilities in AI models 125, as discussed in Ajithp's blog 125; and GSM-Symbolic, a tool created by Apple AI researchers to test mathematical reasoning more thoroughly by adding symbolic templates to existing problems.38
The field of AI is in a constant state of developing new and increasingly challenging benchmarks to keep pace with the rapid advancements in AI capabilities, particularly in the domain of reasoning.113 This ongoing effort to refine evaluation methods reflects a commitment to pushing the boundaries of what AI can achieve and to accurately assess its progress towards more human-like intelligence. As AI models continue to improve their performance on existing benchmarks, the necessity for novel evaluations that can probe deeper and assess more complex forms of intelligence becomes increasingly apparent. The emergence of benchmarks such as FrontierMath 121 and Humanity's Last Exam 113 signifies a crucial step towards evaluating AI on tasks that demand expert-level knowledge and sophisticated reasoning, aligning with the long-term goal of achieving AGI. Evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models in dynamic, real-world scenarios remains a significant and open challenge for the field.122 Current benchmarks often rely on static datasets that may not fully capture the complexities and nuances of reasoning in real-world contexts. While these traditional benchmarks provide valuable insights into specific reasoning skills, they often fall short of assessing how AI systems perform in open-ended, interactive environments where they must handle uncertainty and adapt to new information on the fly. The introduction of benchmarks like GameArena 122, which utilizes live computer games as evaluation environments, represents an important step towards creating more dynamic and realistic assessment scenarios. This shift acknowledges the growing importance of evaluating AI in contexts that more closely resemble the complexity and unpredictability of real-world applications. Ultimately, the development of more sophisticated and comprehensive evaluation methodologies is crucial for accurately measuring progress towards AGI and for ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of advanced AI systems in practical applications. Improved benchmarks will not only help us to better understand the current capabilities of AI but will also serve to guide future research directions by clearly highlighting the areas where AI still falls short of achieving human-level intelligence and understanding.
Theoretical Frameworks for Artificial Understanding
The quest to build truly intelligent artificial systems requires a robust theoretical foundation for understanding what constitutes intelligence and understanding itself. Several theoretical perspectives and frameworks have been proposed to move beyond the limitations of viewing AI solely through the lens of pattern matching.
One such framework centers on the concept of composability, which defines understanding as the ability of a subject (whether human, AI, or other entity) to compose relevant inputs into satisfactory outputs from the perspective of a verifier.128 This theory, proposed in an arXiv paper 128, introduces the idea of "catalysts," which can be internal (like prior knowledge) or external (like educational tools), that enhance the process of composition and thus facilitate understanding. Another prominent perspective emphasizes the importance of internal models of knowledge. This framework posits that AI systems need to learn and utilize internal representations of how the world works in order to reason and act effectively.22 Meta AI's work on Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) 23 is a notable example of research focused on building such internal world models.
Ontologies provide another theoretical approach, suggesting the use of structured frameworks to organize knowledge in a hierarchical and semantic manner. These frameworks enable AI systems to understand and interpret the world in a more organized and context-aware way.133 Makolab's insight 135 discusses the role of ontologies as a fundamental tool supporting AI's ability to structure and reason with knowledge. Drawing inspiration from human cognition, the field also explores various cognitive architectures, such as the Independent Core Observer Model (ICOM), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), and Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT).143 These are discussed in a paper from Lindenwood University 143 and an article on Unite.AI.144 Finally, the Computational Theory of Mind (CTM) offers another perspective, viewing the human brain as a computational system and suggesting that creating conscious AI might involve replicating similar cognitive architectures.144
The concept of composability highlights that understanding is not merely about recognizing patterns but involves the active processing and synthesis of information to produce appropriate outputs. Internal models enable AI systems to go beyond reacting to immediate inputs by creating representations of the world that allow them to make predictions and plan future actions. Ontologies enhance reasoning and understanding by providing a structured and semantic framework for knowledge, explicitly defining concepts and the relationships between them.
Currently, there is no single, universally accepted theoretical framework for understanding intelligence and understanding in the context of AI.145 Researchers are actively exploring a multitude of approaches, often drawing inspiration from diverse disciplines including neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy.146 This reflects the inherent complexity of intelligence and understanding, and the ongoing effort to develop a comprehensive theoretical foundation for artificial intelligence. It is likely that moving beyond the limitations of pattern matching to achieve genuine understanding in AI will require the integration of multiple theoretical concepts and approaches. This might involve combining the strengths of neural networks in pattern recognition with the logical inference capabilities of symbolic reasoning, or incorporating principles of embodied cognition to ground AI's understanding in interaction with the world.57 Pattern matching alone appears insufficient to replicate the depth and flexibility of human understanding. Therefore, a more holistic approach that incorporates reasoning, continuous learning, and a richer, more nuanced representation of the world is likely to be necessary. Continued development and refinement of these theoretical frameworks are essential for guiding future research in AI and for establishing a solid foundation upon which truly intelligent and understanding artificial systems can be built. A strong theoretical underpinning will be crucial for addressing the fundamental challenges in creating AI that can not only perform tasks but also comprehend the world and its own place within it in a meaningful way.
Conclusion
Research on emergent cognitive architectures in advanced AI is a rapidly evolving field with significant implications for the future of artificial intelligence. The phenomenon of emergent abilities in large language models, while demonstrating the power of scaling, continues to be debated regarding its fundamental nature and predictability. The quest for self-understanding in AI draws inspiration from human consciousness and explores various mechanisms such as embodiment, metacognition, and internal models, yet faces profound philosophical and technical challenges. Principled reasoning, encompassing analogical, abductive, counterfactual, moral, and causal forms, is crucial for building reliable and trustworthy AI systems, but achieving human-level sophistication across these modalities remains an open challenge. Mechanistic interpretability offers a promising approach to understanding the inner workings of AI models, providing insights beyond black-box methods, although scalability and automation remain key hurdles. These research areas are deeply intertwined with the development of Artificial General Intelligence and the critical need to ensure the safety and alignment of advanced AI systems with human values. The evaluation of cognitive capabilities in AI is an ongoing process, with the AI community continuously developing new and more challenging benchmarks to overcome the limitations of existing ones and to better measure true understanding rather than just pattern matching. Finally, the development of robust theoretical frameworks for artificial understanding, drawing from diverse disciplines, is essential for guiding future research and building AI systems that can comprehend the world in a meaningful and generalizable way. Continued in-depth research, multi-layered insights, and a dedicated effort to address the complex challenges outlined in this report will be necessary to advance the field towards the development of sophisticated and beneficial advanced AI systems.
Table 1: Summary of Different Types of AI Reasoning
Table 2: Key Benchmarks for Evaluating AI Reasoning
Works cited
Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models - OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/pdf?id=yzkSU5zdwD
Emergent abilities of large language models - Google Research, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://research.google/pubs/emergent-abilities-of-large-language-models/
(PDF) AI and the Cognitive Sense of Self - ResearchGate, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388274949_AI_and_the_Cognitive_Sense_of_Self
Exploring the Cognitive Sense of Self in AI: Ethical Frameworks and Technological Advances for Enhanced Decision-Making - Digital Commons@Lindenwood University, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/faculty-research-papers/715/
Towards Self-Aware AI: Embodiment, Feedback Loops, and the ..., accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202411.0661/v1
What are the different types of reasoning in AI? - Milvus, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://milvus.io/ai-quick-reference/what-are-the-different-types-of-reasoning-in-ai
What is Reasoning in AI? Types and Applications in 2025 - Aisera, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://aisera.com/blog/ai-reasoning/
The Rise of Reasoning Models: How AI is Learning to Think Step by Step - Hiflylabs, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://hiflylabs.com/blog/2025/4/3/reasoning-models
Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models: A Survey - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2503.05788v2
Is AI Safe? Understanding the Risks of Artificial General Intelligence, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://technorizen.com/is-ai-safe-understanding-the-risks-of-artificial-general-intelligence/
proceedings.neurips.cc, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/adc98a266f45005c403b8311ca7e8bd7-Paper-Conference.pdf
Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models: An Explainer - CSET, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/emergent-abilities-in-large-language-models-an-explainer/
AI's Ostensible Emergent Abilities Are a Mirage | Stanford HAI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ais-ostensible-emergent-abilities-are-mirage
[2304.15004] Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage? - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.15004
Examining Emergent Abilities in Large Language ... - Stanford HAI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/news/examining-emergent-abilities-large-language-models
[2206.07682] Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.07682
Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models - OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=yzkSU5zdwD
Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models: A Survey - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.05788
Harnessing Metacognition for Safe and Responsible AI - MDPI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7080/13/3/107
Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition - Causality in Cognition Lab, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://cicl.stanford.edu/papers/johnson2024wise.pdf
Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02478
Analyzing internal world models of humans, animals and AI | ScienceDaily, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/07/240718124848.htm
I-JEPA: The first AI model based on Yann LeCun's vision for more human-like AI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://ai.meta.com/blog/yann-lecun-ai-model-i-jepa/
[2306.17258] Suffering Toasters -- A New Self-Awareness Test for AI - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17258
Thinking Fast and Slow in AI: the Role of Metacognition, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.loreggia.eu/MetacogNeurIPS2021/MADL2021_paper_3.pdf
Self-Awareness, a Singularity of AI - David Publishing Company, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/6454a6a738fa1.pdf
Artificial General Intelligence - The Decision Lab, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/computer-science/artificial-general-intelligence
[D] Neural nets are not "slightly conscious," and AI PR can do with less hype - Reddit, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/sxaiq8/d_neural_nets_are_not_slightly_conscious_and_ai/
The Role of Analogical Reasoning in Advancing Artificial Intelligence - Trailyn Ventures, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.trailyn.com/the-role-of-analogical-reasoning-in-advancing-artificial-intelligence/
LLMs as Models for Analogical Reasoning - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.13803v2
Learning to Make Analogies by Contrasting Abstract Relational Structure - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.00120
LEARNING TO MAKE ANALOGIES BY CONTRASTING ABSTRACT RELATIONAL STRUCTURE, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs379c/class_messages_listing/curriculum/Annotated_Readings/HilletalICLR-19_Unannotated.pdf
Learning to Make Analogies by Contrasting Abstract Relational Structure - OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=SylLYsCcFm
Neural Analogical Reasoning - CEUR-WS.org, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3212/paper9.pdf
Analogical Reasoning With Deep Learning-Based Symbolic Processing - Semantic Scholar, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Analogical-Reasoning-With-Deep-Learning-Based-Honda-Hagiwara/fee0c47bef9ab8803061019026516c008b6edddf
Abstraction and analogy‐making in artificial intelligence - Semantic Scholar, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Abstraction-and-analogy%E2%80%90making-in-artificial-Mitchell/8c479e81ddaf55aba9044449b5be7b7bf2046b7e
(PDF) Analogical Reasoning With Deep Learning-Based Symbolic Processing, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354264584_Analogical_Reasoning_With_Deep_Learning-Based_Symbolic_Processing
Apple AI researchers question OpenAI's claims about o1's reasoning capabilities [about paper "GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models"] : r/singularity - Reddit, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1g1zphu/apple_ai_researchers_question_openais_claims/
How does abductive reasoning work in AI? - Milvus, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://milvus.io/ai-quick-reference/how-does-abductive-reasoning-work-in-ai
Exploring abductive reasoning in AI - IndiaAI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://indiaai.gov.in/article/exploring-abductive-reasoning-in-ai
Is abductive reasoning, and the inferences it draws through having familiarity with a way of life or specific contextual practices, something external to the way that artificial intelligence operates or could potentially operate? : r/askphilosophy - Reddit, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1aj6sar/is_abductive_reasoning_and_the_inferences_it/
Counterfactual Explanations: The What-Ifs of AI Decision Making, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://kpmg.com/ch/en/insights/artificial-intelligence/counterfactual-explanation.html
Viewing the process of generating counterfactuals as a source of knowledge: a new approach for explaining classifiers - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2309.04284v4
Humans Use Counterfactuals to Reason About Causality. Can AI? | Stanford HAI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/news/humans-use-counterfactuals-reason-about-causality-can-ai
Counterfactuals in Language AI - Towards Data Science, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://towardsdatascience.com/counterfactuals-in-language-ai-956673049b64/
Are Artificial Moral Agents the Future of Ethical AI? | Tepperspectives, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://tepperspectives.cmu.edu/all-articles/are-artificial-moral-agents-the-future-of-ethical-ai/
Inducing human-like biases in moral reasoning LMs - LessWrong, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eruHcdS9DmQsgLqd4/inducing-human-like-biases-in-moral-reasoning-lms
How AI tools can—and cannot—help organizations become more ethical - PMC, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10324517/
Full article: Artificial intelligence as a moral mentor - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057240.2025.2475539?src=
Large Concept Models: A Paradigm Shift in AI Reasoning - InfoQ, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.infoq.com/articles/lcm-paradigm-shift-ai-reasoning/
Causal AI: The Future of Intelligent Decision-Making - Kanerika, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://kanerika.com/blogs/causal-ai/
What is Causal AI? Understanding Causes and Effects - DataCamp, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.datacamp.com/blog/what-is-causal-ai
Why Causal AI? | causaLens, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://causalai.causalens.com/why-causal-ai/
CausalML Book, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://causalml-book.org/
Causal AI: the revolution uncovering the 'why' of decision-making | World Economic Forum, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/causal-ai-decision-making/
What Is Reasoning in AI? | IBM, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/ai-reasoning
What is AI reasoning in 2025? | AI reasoning and problem solving | Knowledge and reasoning in AI - Lumenalta, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://lumenalta.com/insights/what-is-ai-reasoning-in-2025
Reasoning Engine: Your Guide to Intelligent Decision-Making Systems | Guru, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.getguru.com/reference/reasoning-engine
Advancements in AI for Reasoning with Complex Data | Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/35106
Mechanistic? - OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/notes/edits/attachment?id=fKPWwcax37&name=pdf
openreview.net, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/pdf?id=91H76m9Z94
Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety A Review - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2404.14082v1
[2404.14082] Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Review - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14082
Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety — A Review | Leonard F. Bereska, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://leonardbereska.github.io/blog/2024/mechinterpreview/
Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety A Review - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2404.14082v2
Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety A Review - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2404.14082v3
Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety - A Review - OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=ePUVetPKu6
[PDF] Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety--A Review Combinational regularity analysis (CORA), accessed on May 17, 2025, http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~kaoru/google4-29-2024.pdf
[R] Has Explainable AI Research Tanked? : r/MachineLearning - Reddit, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1b8zifr/r_has_explainable_ai_research_tanked/
Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety A Review - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2404.14082
Mechanistic Interpretability - Aussie AI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.aussieai.com/research/mechanistic-interpretability
Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety A Review | OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/pdf/ea3c9a4135caad87031d3e445a80d0452f83da5d.pdf
Mechanistic Interpretability Via Learning Differential Equations: AI Safety Camp Project Intermediate Report. - LessWrong, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qdxNsbY5kYNqcgzFb/mechanistic-interpretability-via-learning-differential
Inside AI's Black Box: Mechanistic Interpretability as a Key to AI Transparency, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://community.datascience.hp.com/artificial-intelligence-62/inside-ai-s-black-box-mechanistic-interpretability-as-a-key-to-ai-transparency-274
Takeaways from the Mechanistic Interpretability Challenges - AI Alignment Forum, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/EjsA2M8p8ERyFHLLY/takeaways-from-the-mechanistic-interpretability-challenges
[2407.02646] A Practical Review of Mechanistic Interpretability for Transformer-Based Language Models - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02646
A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models - OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=xwoTdKr0rM
Towards Explainable and Interpretable Multimodal Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2412.02104
A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2502.17516v1
[2502.17516] A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17516
[Literature Review] A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models - Moonlight, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/a-survey-on-mechanistic-interpretability-for-multi-modal-foundation-models
(PDF) Explainable and Interpretable Multimodal Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey - ResearchGate, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386419014_Explainable_and_Interpretable_Multimodal_Large_Language_Models_A_Comprehensive_Survey
itsqyh/Awesome-LMMs-Mechanistic-Interpretability - GitHub, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://github.com/itsqyh/Awesome-LMMs-Mechanistic-Interpretability
A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/pdf/7b15cbcf0e6eb7f970a7346ada0d3cea572203e1.pdf
LLM4RO/README.md at main · xianchaoxiu/LLM4RO · GitHub, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://github.com/xianchaoxiu/LLM4RO/blob/main/README.md
Hongxuan Li's research works - ResearchGate, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Hongxuan-Li-2293029294
A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models. - DBLP, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://dblp.org/rec/journals/corr/abs-2502-17516
Laying the Foundations for Vision and Multimodal Mechanistic Interpretability & Open Problems - LessWrong, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kobJymvvcvhbjWFKe/laying-the-foundations-for-vision-and-multimodal-mechanistic
Laying the Foundations for Vision and Multimodal Mechanistic Interpretability & Open Problems - AI Alignment Forum, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/kobJymvvcvhbjWFKe/laying-the-foundations-for-vision-and-multimodal-mechanistic
Mohammad Beigi - Papers With Code, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://paperswithcode.com/author/mohammad-beigi
[2501.16496] Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.16496
Paper: Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability - LessWrong, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fqDzevPyw3GGaF5o9/paper-open-problems-in-mechanistic-interpretability
Capabilities and alignment of LLM cognitive architectures - AI Alignment Forum, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/ogHr8SvGqg9pW5wsT/capabilities-and-alignment-of-llm-cognitive-architectures
AGI vs AI: Key Differences & Future Implications - Zignuts Technolab, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.zignuts.com/blog/agi-vs-ai-differences
Overview of Emergent and Novel Behavior in AI Systems | Center for ..., accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.centeraipolicy.org/work/emergence-overview
"Magical" Emergent Behaviours in AI: A Security Perspective, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://securing.ai/ai-security/emergent-behaviors-ai-security/
AI alignment - Wikipedia, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment
Thoughts on AGI safety from the top - AI Alignment Forum, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/ApLnWjgMwBTJt6buC/thoughts-on-agi-safety-from-the-top
AGI safety from first principles: Introduction - AI Alignment Forum, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/8xRSjC76HasLnMGSf/agi-safety-from-first-principles-introduction
Core Views on AI Safety: When, Why, What, and How \ Anthropic, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.anthropic.com/news/core-views-on-ai-safety
Forecasting emergent risks in advanced AI systems: an analysis of a future road transport management system - PubMed, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38009364/
Why Uncontrollable AI Looks More Likely Than Ever | TIME, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://time.com/6258483/uncontrollable-ai-agi-risks/
AI Risks that Could Lead to Catastrophe | CAIS - Center for AI Safety, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.safe.ai/ai-risk
Navigating Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Societal Implications, Ethical Considerations, and Governance Strategies - Preprints.org, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202407.1573/v3
Implications of Artificial General Intelligence on National and International Security, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://yoshuabengio.org/2024/10/30/implications-of-artificial-general-intelligence-on-national-and-international-security/
The Anthropocentric Mirror: Examining Bias, Consequences, and Alternatives in Artificial Intelligence Development - Alphanome.AI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.alphanome.ai/post/the-anthropocentric-mirror-examining-bias-consequences-and-alternatives-in-artificial-intelligenc
Examining AI Safety as a Global Public Good: Implications - Oxford Martin School, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/examining-ai-safety-as-a-global-public-good-implications-challenges-and-research-priorities
Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Aligned Emergence in AI Systems: Navigating Complexity towards Coherence - Qeios, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.qeios.com/read/1OHD8T
What are common benchmarks for AI reasoning? - Milvus, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://milvus.io/ai-quick-reference/what-are-common-benchmarks-for-ai-reasoning
Best Benchmarks for Evaluating LLMs' Critical Thinking Abilities - Galileo AI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.galileo.ai/blog/best-benchmarks-for-evaluating-llms-critical-thinking-abilities
EXAONE Deep Released ━ Setting a New Standard for Reasoning AI - LG AI연구원, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.lgresearch.ai/news/view?seq=543
Neural Structure Mapping For Learning Abstract Visual Analogies - OpenReview, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=By5Uwd_xzNF
Technical Performance | The 2025 AI Index Report | Stanford HAI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/technical-performance
Introducing OpenAI o3 and o4-mini, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://openai.com/index/introducing-o3-and-o4-mini/
Challenges in evaluating AI systems - Anthropic, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.anthropic.com/research/evaluating-ai-systems
Introducing Real-World AI Benchmarks for AGI Progress - Turing, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.turing.com/blog/rethinking-ai-benchmarks-for-real-world-impact
The Limits of AI Reasoning: Beyond the Illusion of Intelligence - VE3, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.ve3.global/the-limits-of-ai-reasoning-beyond-the-illusion-of-intelligence/
Unveiling the AI Illusion: Why Chatbots Lack True Understanding and Intelligence, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://ai-cosmos.hashnode.dev/unveiling-the-ai-illusion-why-chatbots-lack-true-understanding-and-intelligence
Toward human-level concept learning: Pattern benchmarking for AI algorithms - PMC, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10435961/
[R] Do people still believe in LLM emergent abilities? : r/MachineLearning - Reddit, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1ai5uqx/r_do_people_still_believe_in_llm_emergent/
FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://epoch.ai/frontiermath/the-benchmark
How to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of LLMs in a more dynamic scenario - Medium, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://medium.com/about-ai/how-to-evaluate-the-reasoning-capabilities-of-llms-in-a-more-dynamic-scenario-a7ed766afde0
[2504.12256] FLIP Reasoning Challenge - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12256
AI Reasoning Benchmark: MathR-Eval in 2025 - Research AIMultiple, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://research.aimultiple.com/ai-reasoning/
Advancements in AI Planning: OpenAI's o1 and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), accessed on May 17, 2025, https://ajithp.com/2024/09/30/ai-reasoning-and-lrms/
RAG Evolution with Reasoning Models - OpenAI Developer Forum, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://community.openai.com/t/rag-evolution-with-reasoning-models/1232802
Approaches for monitoring quality of reasoning capabilities in production - API, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://community.openai.com/t/approaches-for-monitoring-quality-of-reasoning-capabilities-in-production/695313
A theory of understanding for artificial intelligence: composability, catalysts, and learning, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2408.08463v1
[2408.08463] A theory of understanding for artificial intelligence: composability, catalysts, and learning - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08463
[Literature Review] A theory of understanding for artificial intelligence: composability, catalysts, and learning - Moonlight | AI Colleague for Research Papers, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/a-theory-of-understanding-for-artificial-intelligence-composability-catalysts-and-learning
Artificial understanding: a step toward robust AI | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369265890_Artificial_understanding_a_step_toward_robust_AI
From internal models toward metacognitive AI - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8551129/
Exploring Symbolic AI and Ontologies: Enhancing ... - SmythOS, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://smythos.com/ai-agents/agent-architectures/symbolic-ai-and-ontologies/
Ontology Learning - Lark, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.larksuite.com/en_us/topics/ai-glossary/ontology-learning
Ontologies. A tool supporting AI and business - MakoLab, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://makolab.com/insights/ontologies-a-tool-supporting-ai-and-business
Ontologies 101: How They Power AI and Organize Our Digital World - Shep Bryan, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.shepbryan.com/blog/ontologies-101
The Role of Ontology and Information Architecture in AI, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.earley.com/insights/role-ontology-and-information-architecture-ai
Role of Ontologies in Enabling AI Transparency – LFAI & Data, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://lfaidata.foundation/blog/2023/09/29/role-of-ontologies-in-enabling-ai-transparency/
A Guide To Ontologies, The Fuel That Powers Ecommerce AI - Zoovu Blog, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://blog.zoovu.com/what-is-an-ontology/
A MACHINE LEARNING ONTOLOGY - OSF, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://osf.io/rc954/download
Combining Machine Learning and Ontology: A Systematic Literature Review - arXiv, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07744
An Introduction to Ontologies - Workera, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://workera.ai/blog/introduction-to-ontologies
A Framework for the Foundation of the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence - Digital Commons@Lindenwood University, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=faculty-research-papers
AI Consciousness: An Exploration of Possibility, Theoretical Frameworks & Challenges, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.unite.ai/ai-consciousness-an-exploration-of-possibility-theoretical-frameworks-challenges/
(PDF) Theories of Artificial Intelligence—Meta-Theoretical considerations - ResearchGate, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303652455_Theories_of_Artificial_Intelligence-Meta-Theoretical_considerations
AI Frameworks: Top Types To Adopt in 2025 - Splunk, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/learn/ai-frameworks.html
Theoretical Frameworks for Intelligence | The Center for Brains, Minds & Machines, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://cbmm.mit.edu/research/thrusts/theoretical-frameworks-intelligence
A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Natural Language Processing within Artificial Intelligence Systems - IJFMR, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.ijfmr.com/research-paper.php?id=22618
Framework of Artificial Intelligence Learning Platform for Education - ERIC, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1331125.pdf
Theoretical & Conceptual Frameworks w/ AI - YouTube, accessed on May 17, 2025, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=unyz4GKvNsE
2025: The Path Towards More Robust and Adaptable AI: A Focus on ..., accessed on May 17, 2025, https://www.alphanome.ai/post/2025-the-path-towards-more-robust-and-adaptable-ai-a-focus-on-deep-understanding-and-generalizatio
Comments
Post a Comment