ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Large language models as cognitive shortcuts: a systems-theoretic reframing beyond bullshit.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Large Language Models (LLMs) are often framed through metaphors such as "bullshit" or "stochastic parrots," emphasizing missing grounding, belief, or intention. While rhetorically powerful, these framings obscure how LLMs are used for sense-making, ideation, and communication. We reframe LLMs as Operators for General Cognitive Shortcuts (GECOS) within techno-semiotic assemblages. Methods: We develop a functional model by integrating concepts from Luhmannian systems theory, Deleuzian ontology, and minimally from Husserlian phenomenology. Using conceptual analysis as functional-comparative synthesis, we analyze human-LLM interaction without attributing agency, belief, or understanding to the model. Results: GECOS explains LLM usefulness as communicative complexity reduction: models generate connectable continuations by approximating second-order expectations ("what is expected to be expected"), enabling interactional continuity without reference to truth or intention. Via Luhmann's contingency formula, LLMs help users navigate uncertainty through procedurally plausible coherence. Discussion: The framework shifts attention from ontological debates about "understanding" to the operational role of LLMs in distributed sense-making. It also highlights risks: overreliance, emotional projection, and normative flattening when connectability substitutes for justification. Conclusion: GECOS offers a non-anthropomorphic alternative to deficit metaphors by modeling LLMs as pragmatic operators that sustain communicative momentum and enable workable continuations in complex socio-technical environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.