Assertion and Belief: Moore's Paradox in Language Models

Moore's paradox concerns sentences such as ``It is raining, but I don't believe that it is,'' which may well be true yet cannot be sensibly asserted. The absurdity lies not in the content but in the act, since to assert is to vouch for one's own belief. This makes the paradox a test of whether language models take the speech act into account when computing meaning. We present the first test of Moore's paradox in LLMs, evaluating 12 models on a curated set of Moorean sentences in varied contexts. We find that models largely recognize the infelicity of Moorean sentences, and that the judgement is not tied to a memorized form and tracks the speech act. Using the Rational Speech Act framework (RSA;), we then test whether these judgements arise from a listener reasoning about a speaker. We find the models' own listeners do not reason about their own speakers, and their reasoning traces suggest that they instead recall knowledge about the paradox and apply rules therein. The models thus appear to have learned the paradox as a fact about sentences, not as a requirement on speakers.