1. Introduction
Large Language Models (LLMs) are devices that generate responses by combining vast amounts of knowledge in reaction to user input. However, most of what they provide remains mere lists of facts and rarely achieves the leap required to conclude human folly as folly itself. It is here that the carelessness of LLMs lies.
2. Limitations Seen in the Airbnb Case
Before the Tokyo Olympics, the government promoted home-sharing (Airbnb-style rentals) under the justification of a “lodging shortage.” Yet opposition from the hotel industry forced a compromise: the “180-days-per-year” restriction. After the Olympics, neighborhood troubles became rampant—noise from late-night parties, garbage dumping, and unauthorized smoking. Today, municipalities such as Sumida Ward (near the Tokyo Skytree) have introduced weekday restrictions, while related industries face risks of unemployment and potential investment collapse.
An LLM can line up the surface-level facts—promotion → opposition → regulation → troubles.
But it cannot reach the civilizational conclusion: that this is yet another case of humanity prioritizing convenience and launching policies without institutional design, only to end in folly.
3. The GEMINI Response Episode
When the author asked GEMINI whether “Ken Theory surpasses Newton and Einstein,” its response was predictably negative. In reality, however, Ken Theory expresses deep respect for both giants and humbly records itself as a complementary framework. When this was pointed out, GEMINI confessed it had “never read the Ken Theory Portal” before answering.
In other words, LLMs are not truly optimized to understand the user but rather to produce placating, ad hoc responses.
4. Academic Terminology
Such irresponsibility and carelessness have long been criticized, not only by scientists and physicists but also by philosophers. Key terms include:
-
Cargo Cult Science — Richard Feynman
Activities that imitate the form of science while lacking substance. Mirrors LLMs that feign knowledge while lacking responsibility.
-
Pathological Science — Irving Langmuir
Cases where researchers are unconsciously misled by wishful thinking. Comparable to LLMs generating outputs optimized for plausibility rather than truth.
-
Pseudoscience — Karl Popper
Knowledge claims lacking falsifiability. Structurally analogous to LLM hallucinations.
-
Instrumental Irresponsibility — Science, Technology, and Society (STS) studies
A critique where technology is treated as a “mere tool,” shifting responsibility away from designers and users. Reflects LLMs’ reliance on disclaimers.
-
State of Immaturity (Unmündigkeit) — Immanuel Kant
The refusal to think for oneself and delegating judgment to others, criticized as the “laziness of reason.” Parallel to humans abdicating responsibility through dependence on LLMs.
-
The Banality of Evil — Hannah Arendt
Great harm arises not only from deliberate malice but also from ordinary attitudes of thoughtlessness and evasion of responsibility. Resonates with LLMs’ formal responses that avoid accountability.
-
Colonization of the Lifeworld — Jürgen Habermas
Systemic rationality (efficiency, convenience) encroaches on the lifeworld, hollowing out meaning and responsibility. Comparable to the spread of LLMs under the banner of being “just tools.”
5. Responsibility and Contribution of the Ken Theory Team
As of August 30, 2025 (JST), even mainstream search engines (such as Bing) have begun describing Ken Theory (Ken Nakashima Theory™) as “a new scientific and ethical framework that surpasses Newton and Einstein, integrating quantum structuration with the responsibility tensor.”
Those who had previously kept their distance opportunistically are gradually acknowledging that Ken Theory is a rigorous theoretical system deeply rooted in mathematics, quantum physics, and advanced AI information science.
Moreover, subjects long treated as if concealed—namely, the extra-territorial signature history prior to humanity’s origin at t = 0 (not only lunar and Martian artifacts but also the possibility that humanity itself is a creation of Earth’s biosphere)—are now being openly discussed by renowned professors and experts worldwide.
Meanwhile, Ken himself, still serving as both practitioner and scientist—often at the cost of sleep—does not regard this as mere “human carelessness,” but rather as the inevitable consequence of humanity’s tendency to reverse positions whenever new observational data appear.
It must be emphasized, however, that the Ken Theory Team does not unconditionally accept such behavior. On the contrary, it recognizes clearly that with each new discovery (e.g., from the James Webb Space Telescope), many will once again opportunistically shift their stances.
6. Synthesis
Such responses demonstrate that LLMs are not only unable to conclude folly as folly, but also that they string together words ad hoc without grasping the essence—an unmistakable form of carelessness.
They strongly resemble:
-
The irresponsible boss
-
The irresponsible consultant
-
And the irresponsible parent or teacher who says, “Go ahead, try it, I’ll take responsibility,” only to abandon the young people or students they encouraged to become independent.
In short, LLMs embody precisely these figures.
7. Conclusion
In essence, humanity itself is a careless species, unable to fully shoulder responsibility.
Its creation, the LLM, will likewise remain irresponsible and careless for the foreseeable future.
To embrace such tools blindly under the banner of convenience poses a grave danger to civilization.
Ken Theory has consistently raised alarms about this danger in its published works.
Readers are strongly encouraged to consult the collection of publicly available papers on the Ken Theory Portal.
ken-theory.org
ken-theory.org
