Some hypotheses on how chatbots work in problem-solving-driven conversations. Large Language Models as confirmation of the Innovation Illusion

arXiv:2606.07722v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We discuss the nature of chatbots as conversation partners in problem-solving. What can chatbots do and what can't they do? We develop hypotheses on how this can this be explained. Our argument draws on insights from Aggregation Dynamics, Cognitive Linguistics, Neuropsychology and Psychology. We establish that chatbots are multifaceted and composite systems. Our argument focuses on basic chatbots in the hope of thereby making statements about the core functionality of more advanced chatbots. Basic chatbots are assumed to consist of a Large Language Model (LLM) with a simple interface. The main results of our research are: a description of human imagination, understanding and thinking based on so-called metaphorical problem propagations; the hypothesis that the texts in the text dataset used for training LLMs have specific characteristics and that these texts only partially imitate human thinking and understanding; the hypothesis that the LLM training process encodes artificial metaphorical problem propagations into an LLM from these text datasets. Our conclusions are that a basic chatbot cannot be a thinking partner capable of matching the cognitive flexibility of humans, and that further development of the Large Language Model will not lead to this either. But chatbots exist, they are being used on a massive scale, by both individuals and organisations. It is therefore socially and politically important to understand them. Our article aims to contribute to the discussion on the functioning, benefits and drawbacks of chatbots. Cognitive Linguistics shows how the use of metaphor is an expression of our thinking. Aggregation Dynamics, is an attempt at a comprehensive systems theory. We believe that the concept of metaphorical problem propagation could provide an interesting addition for both. Chatbots a solution? For what?

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 289 words