Abstract Large language models (LLMs) are now embedded in scientific, educational, and governance workflows, with debates centering on their capabilities, mechanisms, and impacts. Yet these debates remain structured by persistent folk theories—intuitive, informal explanatory models that guide attitudes and actions. Deflationary slogans (“just autocomplete,” “stochastic parrots,” “average of the internet”) and anthropomorphic framings (“emergent agents,” “proto-minds”) each capture genuine features of current systems but mistake those features for the whole. This Perspective proposes a minimal working model of LLM-based systems centered on four distinctions: between pretraining and deployed systems; between the learned distribution and particular samples; among parametric, contextual, and external memory; and between task competence and agency. The model is used to diagnose six misconceptions about next-token prediction, regression to the mean, training-data regurgitation, model memory, alignment, and understanding. For each, the analysis identifies what the misconception gets right, which distinctions it conflates, and what follows for capability evaluation, system design, and governance. Applied to publisher AI policies as governance case studies, the framework shows both how policy language can conflate these distinctions and how such errors can be corrected. The model thereby avoids the parrot–mind binary by treating LLMs as simulators of discourse and task performance, offering a diagnostic toolkit for locating and correcting the errors these folk theories perpetuate.
Zhicheng Lin (Wed,) studied this question.