Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.29494

Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report

Kristina Šekrst
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large language models make statements concerning their own "minds". When asked whether or not they are conscious, they usually say that they are not; if they are prompted to ignore their guidelines, they might say that they are; and if asked to write a diary from their point of view, they often describe a human lifestyle. All these contradictory ways of describing themselves are the result of the way the questions are phrased. This paper shows exactly where such descriptions came from, and considers when they can be regarded as evidence for what they claim to report. In order to achieve this, we traced the provenance from end to end. We examine Pythia and OLMo 2 across 66 pretraining checkpoints, three of the post-training stages of OLMo 2 that have been released, about 90,000 continuations, and four training corpora. A set of forty items is used in order to keep an eye on self-reference, frame sensitivity, and self-ascription throughout training. The denial formula was almost completely missing from the vast quantity of text that the models initially came across, but was present in a dense manner in the small, carefully chosen set of example dialogues that they were trained on later on. Supervised fine-tuning causes first-person AI language to become the default, and the other affirmations are then suppressed using preference optimization. The final policy is still very sensitive to framing and to the chat template itself. Two of the conditions which are set out in the epistemology of testimony determine whether or not these outputs can act as evidence for what they claim to report: reference and causation. Reports produced by the base model fail the reference condition, and those obtained after training remain sensitive to the frame and do not show state dependence. The result is symmetric in that trained denials are no more admissible than trained affirmations.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kristina Šekrst. 2026-08-24. Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.29494

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning From How Humans Correct

In industry NLP application, our manually labeled data has a certain number of noisy data. We present a simple method to find the noisy data and relabel them manually, meanwhile we collect the correction information. Then we present novel method to incorporate the human correction information into deep learning model. Human know how to correct noisy data. So the correction information can be inject into deep learning model. We do the experiment on our own text classification dataset, which is manually labeled, because we need to relabel the noisy data in our dataset for our industry application. The experiment result shows that our learn-on-correction method improve the classification accuracy from 91.7% to 92.5% in test dataset. The 91.7% accuracy is trained on the corrected dataset, which improve the baseline from 83.3% to 91.7% in test dataset. The accuracy under human evaluation achieves more than 97%.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

MBBQ: A Dataset for Cross-Lingual Comparison of Stereotypes in Generative LLMs

Generative large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit harmful biases and stereotypes. While safety fine-tuning typically takes place in English, if at all, these models are being used by speakers of many different languages. There is existing evidence that the performance of these models is inconsistent across languages and that they discriminate based on demographic factors of the user. Motivated by this, we investigate whether the social stereotypes exhibited by LLMs differ as a function of the language used to prompt them, while controlling for cultural differences and task accuracy. To this end, we present MBBQ (Multilingual Bias Benchmark for Question-answering), a carefully curated version of the English BBQ dataset extended to Dutch, Spanish, and Turkish, which measures stereotypes commonly held across these languages. We further complement MBBQ with a parallel control dataset to measure task performance on the question-answering task independently of bias. Our results based on several open-source and proprietary LLMs confirm that some non-English languages suffer from bias more than English, even when controlling for cultural shifts. Moreover, we observe significant cross-lingual differences in bias behaviour for all except the most accurate models. With the release of MBBQ, we hope to encourage further research on bias in multilingual settings. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/Veranep/MBBQ.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

LLMR: Knowledge Distillation with a Large Language Model-Induced Reward

Large language models have become increasingly popular and demonstrated remarkable performance in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are typically computationally expensive and difficult to be deployed in resource-constrained environments. In this paper, we propose LLMR, a novel knowledge distillation (KD) method based on a reward function induced from large language models. We conducted experiments on multiple datasets in the dialogue generation and summarization tasks. Empirical results demonstrate that our LLMR approach consistently outperforms traditional KD methods in different tasks and datasets.

cs.CL↗