arXiv:2605.03936v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Conceptual analysis — proposing definitions and refining them through counterexamples — is central to philosophical methodology. We study whether language models can perform this task through iterated analysis and repair chains: one model instance generates counterexamples to a proposed definition, another repairs the definition, and the process repeats. Across 20 concepts and thousands of counterexample-repair cycles, we find that, although many LM-generated counterexamples are judged invalid by both expert humans and an LM judge, the LM judge accepts roughly twice as many as humans do. Nonetheless, per-item validity judgments are moderately consistent across humans and between humans and the LM. We further find that extended iteration produces increasingly verbose definitions without improving accuracy. We also see that some concepts resist stable definitions in general. These findings suggest that while LMs can engage in philosophical reasoning, the counterexample-repair loop hits diminishing returns quickly and could be a fruitful test case for evaluating whether LMs can sustain high-level iterated philosophical reasoning.
Crisis support teams’ technological openness and learning attitudes toward the AI based virtual patient system crisis support VR
BackgroundAgainst the backdrop of escalating global humanitarian crises, innovative didactic simulations are becoming increasingly important. A promising alternative to traditional classroom-based didactics for learning psychological