Giuseppe Riva

Giuseppe Riva, Fabrizia Mantovani, Brenda K. Wiederhold et al.

Although LLMs and other artificial intelligence systems demonstrate cognitive skills similar to humans, like concept learning and language acquisition, the way they process information fundamentally differs from biological cognition. To better understand these differences this paper introduces Psychomatics, a multidisciplinary framework bridging cognitive science, linguistics, and computer science. It aims to better understand the high-level functioning of LLMs, focusing specifically on how LLMs acquire, learn, remember, and use information to produce their outputs. To achieve this goal, Psychomatics will rely on a comparative methodology, starting from a theory-driven research question - is the process of language development and use different in humans and LLMs? - drawing parallels between LLMs and biological systems. Our analysis shows how LLMs can map and manipulate complex linguistic patterns in their training data. Moreover, LLMs can follow Grice's Cooperative Principle to provide relevant and informative responses. However, human cognition draws from multiple sources of meaning, including experiential, emotional, and imaginative facets, which transcend mere language processing and are rooted in our social and developmental trajectories. Moreover, current LLMs lack physical embodiment, reducing their ability to make sense of the intricate interplay between perception, action, and cognition that shapes human understanding and expression. Ultimately, Psychomatics holds the potential to yield transformative insights into the nature of language, cognition, and intelligence, both artificial and biological. Moreover, by drawing parallels between LLMs and human cognitive processes, Psychomatics can inform the development of more robust and human-like AI systems.

Giuseppe Riva, Brenda K. Wiederhold, Fabrizia Mantovani

The cognitive processes of the hypnotized mind and the computational operations of large language models (LLMs) share deep functional parallels. Both systems generate sophisticated, contextually appropriate behavior through automatic pattern-completion mechanisms operating with limited or unreliable executive oversight. This review examines this convergence across three principles: automaticity, in which responses emerge from associative rather than deliberative processes; suppressed monitoring, leading to errors such as confabulation in hypnosis and hallucination in LLMs; and heightened contextual dependency, where immediate cues (for example, the suggestion of a therapist or the prompt of the user) override stable knowledge. These mechanisms reveal an observer-relative meaning gap: both systems produce coherent but ungrounded outputs that require an external interpreter to supply meaning. Hypnosis and LLMs also exemplify functional agency - the capacity for complex, goal-directed, context-sensitive behavior - without subjective agency, the conscious awareness of intention and ownership that defines human action. This distinction clarifies how purposive behavior can emerge without self-reflective consciousness, governed instead by structural and contextual dynamics. Finally, both domains illuminate the phenomenon of scheming: automatic, goal-directed pattern generation that unfolds without reflective awareness. Hypnosis provides an experimental model for understanding how intention can become dissociated from conscious deliberation, offering insights into the hidden motivational dynamics of artificial systems. Recognizing these parallels suggests that the future of reliable AI lies in hybrid architectures that integrate generative fluency with mechanisms of executive monitoring, an approach inspired by the complex, self-regulating architecture of the human mind.

Giuseppe Riva

AI systems now function as cognitive extensions, evolving from tools to active cognitive collaborators within human-AI integrated systems. While these systems can amplify cognition - enhancing problem-solving, learning, and creativity - they present a fundamental "comfort-growth paradox": AI's user-friendly nature may foster intellectual stagnation by minimizing cognitive friction necessary for development. As AI aligns with user preferences and provides frictionless assistance, it risks inducing cognitive complacency rather than promoting growth. We introduce Enhanced Cognitive Scaffolding to resolve this paradox - reconceptualizing AI from convenient assistant to dynamic mentor. Drawing from Vygotskian theories, educational scaffolding principles, and AI ethics, our framework integrates three dimensions: (1) Progressive Autonomy, where AI support gradually fades as user competence increases; (2) Adaptive Personalization, tailoring assistance to individual needs and learning trajectories; and (3) Cognitive Load Optimization, balancing mental effort to maximize learning while minimizing unnecessary complexity. Research across educational, workplace, creative, and healthcare domains supports this approach, demonstrating accelerated skill acquisition, improved self-regulation, and enhanced higher-order thinking. The framework includes safeguards against risks like dependency, skill atrophy, and bias amplification. By prioritizing cognitive development over convenience in human-AI interaction, Enhanced Cognitive Scaffolding offers a pathway toward genuinely amplified cognition while safeguarding autonomous thought and continuous learning.

Giuseppe Riva

Contemporary human-AI interaction research overlooks how AI systems fundamentally reshape human cognition pre-consciously, a critical blind spot for understanding distributed cognition. This paper introduces "Cognitive Infrastructure Studies" (CIS) as a new interdisciplinary domain to reconceptualize AI as "cognitive infrastructures": foundational, often invisible systems conditioning what is knowable and actionable in digital societies. These semantic infrastructures transport meaning, operate through anticipatory personalization, and exhibit adaptive invisibility, making their influence difficult to detect. Critically, they automate "relevance judgment," shifting the "locus of epistemic agency" to non-human systems. Through narrative scenarios spanning individual (cognitive dependency), collective (democratic deliberation), and societal (governance) scales, we describe how cognitive infrastructures reshape human cognition, public reasoning, and social epistemologies. CIS aims to address how AI preprocessing reshapes distributed cognition across individual, collective, and cultural scales, requiring unprecedented integration of diverse disciplinary methods. The framework also addresses critical gaps across disciplines: cognitive science lacks population-scale preprocessing analysis capabilities, digital sociology cannot access individual cognitive mechanisms, and computational approaches miss cultural transmission dynamics. To achieve this goal CIS also provides methodological innovations for studying invisible algorithmic influence: "infrastructure breakdown methodologies", experimental approaches that reveal cognitive dependencies by systematically withdrawing AI preprocessing after periods of habituation.