Explores the potential for metacognition in LLMs, suggesting functions rather than biological origins.
In this paper, I investigate whether metacognition — the ability to monitor, evaluate, and regulate one’s own cognitive processes and performance — can arise in non-biological systems, especially Large Language Models (LLMs). Drawing on cognitive science and philosophy of mind, I contrast embodied and enactivist accounts, which tie metacognition to biological consciousness and embodied entities, with functionalist perspectives that define it as a substrate-independent process. I argue that the absence of evidence is not evidence of impossibility and propose a functional definition of metacognition based on internal representation, monitoring, and self-regulation. Recent studies on LLMs show early functional signatures of self-monitoring, suggesting the emergence of limited operational introspection. While I do not claim that artificial metacognition has been demonstrated, I advocate an epistemically open, non-anthropocentric approach. Metacognition, I conclude, should be conceived as a functionally realizable property across different substrates, evaluated by what systems do, not what they are.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simone Conversano (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: