Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2609.29494 (cs)
[Submitted on 24 Aug 2026]
Title:Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report
Authors:Kristina Šekrst
View a PDF of the paper titled Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report, by Kristina \v{S}ekrst
View PDF
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.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.29494 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2609.29494v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.29494
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report, by Kristina \v{S}ekrst
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
A Mechanistic Study of AI-Text Detection Neurons in Frozen BERT: Sparse Probing and Activation Patching on RAID
Sep 28
-
Manifold Projection and Iterative Autoencoder Refinement for Masked Language Modeling
Sep 28
-
Not All Memories Are Equal: Hierarchical Collaborative Memory for Validity-Aware Retrieval in LLM Agents
Sep 28
-
Auditing and Repairing LLM-as-Judge Failures in a Production Text-to-SQL Pipeline
Sep 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.