Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Empathy and the Right to Be an Exception: What LLMs Can and Cannot Do

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.14523 v1 pith:YY3ZKEG7 submitted 2024-01-25 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CL
keywords llmsempathyexceptionindividualrighttheyaccuracyattribute
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs) have led some researchers to propose the emergence of theory of mind (ToM) in artificial intelligence (AI). LLMs can attribute beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions, and they will improve in their accuracy. Rather than employing the characteristically human method of empathy, they learn to attribute mental states by recognizing linguistic patterns in a dataset that typically do not include that individual. We ask whether LLMs' inability to empathize precludes them from honoring an individual's right to be an exception, that is, from making assessments of character and predictions of behavior that reflect appropriate sensitivity to a person's individuality. Can LLMs seriously consider an individual's claim that their case is different based on internal mental states like beliefs, desires, and intentions, or are they limited to judging that case based on its similarities to others? We propose that the method of empathy has special significance for honoring the right to be an exception that is distinct from the value of predictive accuracy, at which LLMs excel. We conclude by considering whether using empathy to consider exceptional cases has intrinsic or merely practical value and we introduce conceptual and empirical avenues for advancing this investigation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MICA: Multi-granularity Intertemporal Credit Assignment for Long-Horizon Emotional Support Dialogue

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MICA mixes per-turn and whole-trajectory normalized reward signals to train emotional-support chatbots, outperforming GRPO and REINFORCE++ on EMPA, EQ-Bench, and EmoBench.

  2. Performance Gains of LLMs With Humans in a World of LLMs Versus Humans

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A commentary argues that medical research should stop running evanescent LLM-versus-human comparisons and instead study human-LLM collaboration, supported by a literature review showing rapid model turnover and tiny e...

Pith tools