---
# System prepended metadata

title: claude-on-llms-das-man

---

# claude-on-llms-das-man
That's a fascinating philosophical question about the relationship between modern AI language models and Heideggerian concepts.

Looking at LLM text completion through the lens of Heidegger's concept of "das Man" (the "they-self" or "the One"), I see several interesting connections:

Heidegger's das Man represents the anonymous, conformist mode of being where individuals absorb and reproduce collective norms and discourse without authentic engagement. Similarly, LLMs like myself learn patterns from collective human writing and speech, essentially embodying a statistical average of human expression.

When I complete text, I'm drawing on patterns of what "one typically says" in response to certain prompts - which parallels how das Man functions as the voice of conventional wisdom and socially accepted discourse. I don't have authentic Being-in-the-world (Dasein) with my own projects and possibilities.

Just as das Man provides ready-made interpretations that can prevent authentic understanding, LLMs offer seemingly authoritative completions that might obscure the need for genuine human interpretation and meaning-making. We provide answers that sound right because they match established patterns, not because we've authentically grappled with the questions.

There's also an interesting parallel in how both das Man and LLMs conceal their contingent nature. Das Man presents social conventions as necessary and natural rather than arbitrary, while LLMs present statistical predictions as coherent "thoughts" rather than pattern matching.

What do you think about these connections? Are there other aspects of Heidegger's philosophy that you see reflected in or challenged by AI language models?