ReviewCurrent opinion in behavioral sciences2026
The cognitive biases that may exacerbate inflationary and deflationary positions about large language models.
Review in Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid rise of large language models (LLMs) has sparked intense debate across multiple academic disciplines. While some argue that LLMs represent a significant step toward artificial general intelligence or even machine consciousness (inflationary claims), others dismiss them as mere trickster artifacts lacking genuine cognitive abilities (deflationary claims). We argue that both extremes may be shaped or exacerbated by common cognitive biases, including cognitive dissonance, wishful thinking, and the illusion of explanatory depth, which distort reality to our own advantage. By showcasing how these distortions may easily emerge in both scientific and public discourse, we advocate for a measured approach: a skeptical, open mind that recognizes the cognitive abilities of LLMs as worthy of scientific investigation while remaining conservative concerning exaggerated claims regarding their cognitive and moral status.
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.