Cognitive Bias

Opening — Why this matters now AI models are no longer passive text engines. They remember, reason, and improvise — sometimes poorly. As large language models (LLMs) gain memory and autonomy, we face a paradox: they become more useful because they act more like humans, and more dangerous for the same reason. This tension lies at the heart of a new paper, “When Memory Leads Us Astray: A Study of Bias and Mislearning in Agentic LLMs” (arXiv:2511.08585). ...

Social simulations are entering their uncanny valley. Fueled by generative agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), recent frameworks like Smallville, AgentSociety, and SocioVerse simulate thousands of lifelike agents forming friendships, spreading rumors, and planning parties. But do these simulations reflect real social processes — or merely replay the statistical shadows of the internet? When Simulacra Speak Fluently LLMs have demonstrated striking abilities to mimic human behaviors. GPT-4 has passed Theory-of-Mind (ToM) tests at levels comparable to 6–7 year-olds. In narrative contexts, it can detect sarcasm, understand indirect requests, and generate empathetic replies. But all of this arises not from embodied cognition or real-world goals — it’s just next-token prediction trained on massive corpora. ...

In the age of natural language interfaces to databases (NLIDBs), asking the right question has never been easier—or more perilous. While systems like ChatGPT or SQL-Palm can convert everyday English into valid SQL, they often do so without interrogating the quality of the question itself. And as Peter Drucker warned, “The most dangerous thing is asking the wrong question.” Enter VeriMinder, a system built not to improve SQL syntax or execution accuracy—but to diagnose and refine the analytical intent behind the user’s query. It tackles a deceptively simple yet far-reaching problem: a well-formed SQL query that answers a poorly formed question can yield confident but misleading insights. This is particularly problematic in enterprise settings where non-technical users rely on LLM-based BI assistants. ...

What makes a large language model (LLM) biased? Is it the instruction tuning data, the randomness of training, or something more deeply embedded? A new paper from Itzhak, Belinkov, and Stanovsky, presented at COLM 2025, delivers a clear verdict: pretraining is the primary source of cognitive biases in LLMs. The implications of this are far-reaching — and perhaps more uncomfortable than many developers would like to admit. The Setup: Two Steps, One Core Question The authors dissected the origins of 32 cognitive biases in LLMs using a controlled two-step causal framework: ...

In the latest paper “Language Agents Mirror Human Causal Reasoning Biases” (Chen et al., 2025), researchers uncovered a persistent issue affecting even the most advanced language model (LM) agents: a disjunctive bias—a tendency to prefer “OR”-type causal explanations over equally valid or even stronger “AND”-type ones. Surprisingly, this mirrors adult human reasoning patterns and undermines the agents’ ability to draw correct conclusions in scientific-style causal discovery tasks. ...