Hi Aisulu, I thought your project idea was very thought provoking and going against the grain of the mainstream narratives, which is applaudable. If you’re gonna use this project forward, it would fit perfectly as a perspective peer-reviewed article, that could be published in many academic journals. To strengthen your arguments, I’d strike to find a balance between theory and practice, in particular, I’d suggest expanding on section “6. World Models”, and more generally, expanding on what’s already out there in practice to add credibility to your claims.

The principal claim of this project proposal is that similarities between LLMs and human cognition can support the idea that LLMs exhibit "genuine understanding" in contrast to being "statistical parrots". While the investigation of human-likeness of LLM cognition is an important research direction, the project described here requires substantial further conceptual development and refinement. The construct of "statistical mechanisms" used in the human research reviewed is not unified nor actually the same construct used in the literature to suggest that LLMs do not have genuine understanding. For example, the fact that humans reason about probabilities or use probabilistic reasoning is a very different notion than the idea that LLMs only learn statistics and do not acquire actual understanding. Philosophical work relating understanding to consciousness is another topic entirely, not clearly related to the idea of probabilities or statistics. Bounded rationality is a yet different topic also distinct from probabilistic reasoning and does not relate specifically to whether learning is "statistical". It is not clear how human-AI interaction relates to these themes. While these ideas are worth developing further, the main missing element is that there is no concrete research direction proposed. I hope the author develops their ideas into a concrete research idea in a future draft.

Thank you for submitting your work on ‘Beyond Statistical Parrots: Unveiling Cognitive Similarities and Exploring AI Psychology through Human-AI Interaction’ - it was an interesting read. Please see below for some feedback on your project:

1. Strengths of your proposal/ project:

- The introduction gives me a good overall sense of why your project is important, supported by evidence/ work and critiques to date.

- Overall your paper is very interesting to read - it succinctly covers a topic that I’ve been wondering about for some time, but which I didn’t have any background information on yet.

- The paper is generally well referenced.

- The paper offers some interesting insights that made me pause and reflect. For example, I particularly liked your insight that ‘The fundamental difference may not be in the statistical nature of processing, but rather in the embodied context […].

2. Areas for improvement

- It would be helpful to have a definition of "statistical parrots" and what is meant (in contrast) by ‘genuine understanding’ (p.1). This also applies to other terms used in the paper, e.g., ‘bounded rationality’.

- Full in-text citations should be used (e.g., Kahneman’s dual-process theory on p.1 is unreferenced).

- I’d perhaps avoid sweeping statements (e.g., ‘many psychological conditions […] cannot be fully explained through neurological mechanisms alone’ - can’t they? Or is it just that we currently lack the methodologies required to explain these mechanisms?).

- Some sections contain quite big statements but no reference - I’d recommend citations here (e.g., ‘the tendency to attribute human-like qualities to AI systems creates inflated expectations and a misplaced sense of understanding […] p. 4) - although I appreciate that generally you’ve made a strong effort to cite your work.

- The project is quite descriptive overall, and would benefit from more critical analysis/ a deeper level of engagement with different methodologies.

- The paper is missing documentation/ clear methods, so this is the largest area of improvement.