Lately, for both work purposes and personal interest, I have been experimenting with LLMs (Large Language Models) such as ChatGPT, for example. In so doing, I’ve noticed an eerie similarity between how these AI systems generate responses and how humans sometimes engage in thought and conversation.
LLMs work by predicting the most likely next word based on patterns in vast amounts of text. They do not “think” in the way we do—they simply generate plausible-sounding sequences of words. They aren’t even always correct. Sometimes they hallucinate completely baseless statements – but it sounds like the kind of thing people say.
In several ways, people (myself included) often fall into a similar pattern of automated, unreflective thought. It’s like there is this core that is truly us (the higher, conscious and aware being), and it sits in the middle of this ‘nest’ of neurons which are kind of patterned after us, but not us. We sit in the middle of a biological LLM. At times, we get lazy or drift off, and the LLM stands in for us. This can manifest in different ways:
Mindless Small Talk
Much of the mindless small talk that fills typical conversations can often flow from our mouths without much thought…
“Hello”
“Hi, how are you?”
“Fine. You?”
“Good thanks.”
Like an LLM, it isn’t necessarily true that either of them are ‘fine’. It isn’t even thought about. But it does sound like what you’re ‘supposed’ to say – like following a script. This is the easiest example of slipping into an LLM dream, but it is even deep than this.
Self Narratives
The stories we tell ourselves about our lives, what happens to us, whether it is good or bad, how we should feel about it, and so on. We often don’t even question this internal dialogue – if we are even aware of it. When we do, we can find ourselves thinking, “wait, that’s not true” or “why would I think that!?”
So-Called Positions
We can even get into assertive debates or conversations on what seem like complex political, social, or philosophic topics and yet be in LLM mode. One would think these kinds of topics would require higher-level reflective thought. But many people routinely engage in such exchanges while completely acting as an LLM. They say the typical kinds of things you hear all the time in politics, for example, because that’s what they hear you are supposed to think about the government, or taxes, or regulation, or immigration, etc. But as you converse with them, you find that they don’t really have any kind of facts which led them to that conclusion. No matter what facts you show them, it doesn’t cause them to rebuilt or restructure their ‘logic tree’ because there is no logic tree. There is no series of premises and conclusions that lead to their position. They are simply parroting. And when you try to, even politely, probe with questions merely to get an understanding of their worldview, they don’t know how to respond, and can only move toward defensiveness or aggression.
* * * * * *
I wondered whether this phenomenon has been described in psychology, philosophy, and related fields. As it turns out, many thinkers have explored aspects of this mental automation.
Cognitive psychologists describe much of human thought as automatic processing, meaning we rely on habitual responses instead of deep reasoning. Daniel Kahneman, in Thinking, Fast and Slow, explains that we have two modes of thought: “System 1,” which is quick, instinctive, and heavily influenced by learned patterns, and “System 2,” which is deliberate, effortful, and reflective. Many of the examples I noted (small talk, self-narratives, and political echoing) fall into System 1. Unless we consciously engage System 2, we can remain trapped in automatic thought loops.
Sociologists have also examined the ways people unconsciously adhere to social scripts. Erving Goffman, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, describes how much of our interaction is performative—we follow expected behaviors without true awareness. Similarly, Michel Foucault argued that dominant social discourses shape our thinking, often in ways we do not consciously perceive. This extends beyond social interactions into the very way we construct our self-image and worldview, often without questioning whether these narratives serve us.
From a more existential and spiritual perspective, philosophers like Heidegger and Sartre have written about inauthenticity, where individuals adopt societal norms without question. Buddhist traditions emphasize mindfulness as a way to escape automatic thinking, while philosopher George Gurdjieff suggested that most humans live in a state of “waking sleep,” only occasionally achieving true awareness. These perspectives all point to the same insight: much of our thought and behavior is governed by unconscious patterns, and only through awareness can we reclaim genuine engagement with our minds.
Ironically, AI models like LLMs highlight just how patterned and predictable human speech can be. Jaron Lanier and other computer scientists have noted that social media algorithms further encourage this phenomenon, trapping people in feedback loops of unoriginal, automated thought. The unsettling realization is that, in many ways, we are not so different from the AI we create—at least, not when we operate on autopilot.
But waking up from this LLM dronelike state is possible. Sometimes a person can simply become aware of their own automated thinking and shifting, into a more engaged, reflective mode. Recognizing when we are in an automatic mode is the first step toward deeper engagement with our own thoughts. Practicing mindfulness, questioning our own beliefs, and exposing ourselves to diverse perspectives can help us break out of these patterns.
By becoming aware of our own mental scripts, we can shift from passive automation to active engagement with our own minds. AI may predict words, but we have the unique human ability to step outside our own conditioned responses and choose how we think. The challenge, and the opportunity, lies in noticing when we are merely running on autopilot—and making the conscious decision to wake up.
__________
Learn about Membership in the Spiritual Naturalist Society
The Spiritual Naturalist Society works to spread awareness of spiritual naturalism as a way of life, develop its thought and practice, and help bring together like-minded practitioners in fellowship.
SNS strives to include diverse voices within the spectrum of naturalistic spirituality. Authors will vary in their opinions, terms, and outlook. The views of no single author therefore necessarily reflect those of all Spiritual Naturalists or of SNS.
__________
References:
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Pantheon Books.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
Gurdjieff, G. I. (1973). Meetings with Remarkable Men. Penguin.
Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time. Harper & Row.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lanier, J. (2010). You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. Alfred A. Knopf.
Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness. Routledge.
Note: discussion is moderated and comments require approval; this may take some time.