Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.09064

Talking with Language Models

Abstract

When we interact with large language models (LLMs), are we having a conversation? They are designed to invite us to treat them as intelligent interlocutors who remember, act, and make commitments. But appearances deceive. We introduce the artifactual stance, a framework that reconceives human-AI interaction as artifact-mediated exchanges of candidate texts. LLM outputs are candidate texts optimized for utility, not utterances bearing meaning or force. LLMs are sophisticated text generators, not speakers. Between sessions, nothing runs; between turns, no one remembers. What persists is a configuration and a transcript. The "conversation" is a user's solo performance, interpretive labour disguised by interface and artifact design. This shift dissolves recent philosophical puzzles. Questions about what 'I' and 'you' refer to in AI exchanges, about whether systems can lie or be held to promises, about the identity of our supposed interlocutors all rest on a false presupposition. There is no speaker behind the screen, hence no one to refer to, no one to hold responsible. What feels like dialogue with someone is interaction with an artifact that generates text at unprecedented scale and fit. By abandoning the conversational framing, we see these systems for what they are: immensely sophisticated artifacts that afford varied uses. The philosophical questions that matter are about the normative underpinnings of design, adoption, authorization, and human practices of use.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James Ravi Kirkpatrick, Alexandru Radulescu, Rachel Katharine Sterken. 2026-10-06. Talking with Language Models. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2026.2745114

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Orchestrating LLM Agents for Scientific Research: A Pilot Study of Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) Generation and Evaluation

Advances in large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming scientific work, yet empirical evidence on how these systems reshape research activities remains limited. We report a mixed-methods pilot evaluation of an AI-orchestrated research workflow in which a human researcher coordinated multiple LLM-based agents to perform data extraction, corpus construction, artifact generation, and artifact evaluation. Using the generation and assessment of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) as a testbed, we collected 1,071 SAT Math MCQs and employed LLM agents to extract questions from PDFs, retrieve and convert open textbooks into structured representations, align each MCQ with relevant textbook content, generate new MCQs under specified difficulty and cognitive levels, and evaluate both original and generated MCQs using a 24-criterion quality framework. Across all evaluations, average MCQ quality was high. However, criterion-level analysis and equivalence testing show that generated MCQs are not fully comparable to expert-vetted baseline questions. Strict similarity (24/24 criteria equivalent) was never achieved. Persistent gaps concentrated in skill\ depth, cognitive engagement, difficulty calibration, and metadata alignment, while surface-level qualities, such as {grammar fluency}, {clarity options}, {no duplicates}, were consistently strong. Beyond MCQ outcomes, the study documents a labor shift. The researcher's work moved from ``authoring items'' toward {specification, orchestration, verification}, and {governance}. Formalizing constraints, designing rubrics, building validation loops, recovering from tool failures, and auditing provenance constituted the primary activities. We discuss implications for the future of scientific work, including emerging ``AI research operations'' skills required for AI-empowered research pipelines.

cs.CY↗

TeamLens in Critsly: A Consent-Based Team-Composition Interface and Synthetic Readiness Evaluation for Design Collaboration

Discussing working preferences may support reflection within a design team, but a personality label should not become a performance prediction or a condition of participation. This technical report presents TeamLens, an optional Critsly interface for voluntarily sharing a self-reported MBTI type with a particular board. It separates account activation from disclosure, displays descriptive composition counts, and provides distinct controls for disabling visibility, withdrawing one report and deleting all of one's reports. The evaluation combines released-source inspection, independently specified synthetic aggregation cases, access and lifecycle checks, browser component tests, a local database microbenchmark and deployment records. All 65,536 binary eligibility subsets of sixteen fixed, distinct type reports matched an independent oracle; 128 seeded multiplicity fixtures also matched, after 4,259 synthetic share calls. The isolated HTTP suite passed 183 assertions. In 180 sequential in-memory SQLite read trials, median service-call time increased from 0.064 ms with no profile rows to 200.932 ms with 1,024 rows; instrumented SQL operations followed 11+3n. These findings concern exercised software behaviour and a bounded workload. They do not establish human usability, psychometric validity, learning gains, team-performance effects or production capacity. The contribution is an implemented disclosure-to-aggregation workflow and an auditable technical account of its correctness boundaries, privacy limitations and scaling cost. OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, evaluation and manuscript preparation; the paper discloses this use and its limits.

cs.CY↗

MARS: A Momentum-Aware Adaptive Rating System for Personalized Assessment

Adaptive assessment systems personalize learning by estimating learner proficiency and recommending suitable questions. However, many existing approaches rely on fixed difficulty labels, static rating updates, or black-box prediction models that provide limited control over rating stability, interpretability, and time-constrained routing. This paper proposes MARS, a Momentum-Aware Adaptive Rating System for interpretable adaptive assessment. MARS represents the question bank as a directed weighted knowledge graph and updates learner proficiency using dynamic rating sensitivity, response quality, and momentum-aware learner velocity. We also formulate a time-budgeted mark-maximization objective in which the policy selects questions within a fixed test duration under negative marking. Experiments on ASSISTments 2009 and MARS-SimExam evaluate MARS for prediction, rating stability, and adaptive routing. Results show that MARS provides smoother rating updates than Fixed Elo and achieves the highest score under time-budgeted negative-marking routing, improving the total score by 8.09 over the strongest baseline and reducing overtime violations from 50% to 5.6%. These results suggest that MARS is suitable for real-time, interpretable, and deployment-friendly adaptive assessment.

cs.CY↗