Research Appraisalother

A sentence is worth a thousand pictures: can large language models understand hum4n L4ngu4ge and the W0rld behind W0rds?

Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciencesLeivada, Evelina, Marcus, Gary, Günther, Fritz et al.14 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

60CEBM
Evidence: Weakother

PICO Framework

P — PopulationLarge language models (LLMs) and human participants
I — InterventionNovel leet task (l33t t4sk) requiring decoding of sentences with letters systematically replaced by numbers
C — ComparatorHuman performance versus LLM performance on the same linguistic decoding task
O — OutcomesAbility to decode modified text, demonstrating grounded cognition and top-down processing capabilities

Bottom Line

This theoretical study challenges claims about human-like linguistic capabilities in large language models by demonstrating that LLMs struggle with a novel leet decoding task that humans perform well. The authors argue this reflects LLMs' lack of grounded cognition and over-reliance on fixed word-vector associations rather than top-down processing from world knowledge. While the research addresses important questions about AI limitations, the abstract provides insufficient methodological detail and no quantitative results. The findings have no direct clinical applications but may inform future development of AI tools in healthcare by highlighting the importance of grounded understanding rather than pattern matching. The work contributes to ongoing debates about the nature of machine versus human intelligence and the limitations of current AI approaches.

Evidence: Weak

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not reported

  • Effect Size: Not reported

  • Primary Outcome: Comparative performance on leet decoding task between humans and LLMs

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Qualitative finding: humans excel while LLMs struggle with systematic letter-to-number substitution decoding

  • Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

Not applicable to clinical practice No direct relevance to Australian healthcare, though findings may inform AI implementation in clinical decision support systems Not applicable - theoretical cognitive science research

Abstract

The current generation of large language models (LLMs) has been linked to claims about human-like linguistic performance, and their applications are hailed both as a step towards artificial general intelligence and as a major advance in understanding the cognitive and even neural basis of human language. To assess these claims, first, we analysed the contribution of LLMs as theoretically informative representations of a target cognitive system versus atheoretical mechanistic tools. Second, we evaluated the models' ability to see the bigger picture through top-down feedback from higher levels of processing, which requires grounding in previous expectations and past world experience. We hypothesize that since models lack grounded cognition, they cannot take advantage of these features and instead solely rely on fixed associations between represented words and word vectors. To assess this, we ran a novel leet task (l33t t4sk), which requires decoding sentences in which letters are systematically replaced by numbers. In line with our hypothesis, the results suggest that humans excel in this task, whereas models struggle. We interpret these results by identifying the key abilities that are still missing from the current state of development of these models, which require solutions that go beyond increased system scaling. This article is part of the theme issue 'World models in natural and artificial intelligence'.

References

  1. 1.Leivada, E., Marcus, G., Günther, F., & Murphy, E. (2026). A sentence is worth a thousand pictures: can large language models understand hum4n L4ngu4ge and the W0rld behind W0rds? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 384(2274). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2025.0008
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service