Strangers to Themselves: What Language Models Say About Themselves Is Generic
Updated 4 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294GMZW3VHFH23W4PAFFN6V
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 4 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.09899
- T1 · 4 h ago
- Category
- cs.LG
- T1 · 4 h ago
Abstract
Language models can fluently describe how they would behave: whether they would cave to pushback, misuse a tool, or lie under pressure. Is that description actually about the model speaking? We turn self-knowledge into a prediction test. Across nine behavioral evaluations, we measure how a model behaves under different conditions, ask it to predict those rates, and compare its predictions with controls that remove the self from the question. We find that: (i) Direct self-report is weak (r = +0.04), and even showing the model the exact items only raises prediction to +0.24. Crucially, the same item-informed question about "capable AI agents in general" does just as well (+0.28), while other models' answers about themselves predict the target model at least as well as its own. (ii) Frontier scale does not detectably change this pattern: any gains in prediction are not self-specific, and are consistent with a better theory of how AI assistants behave rather than better self-knowledge. (iii) First-person framing does have one robust effect: it shifts reports in the flattering direction, understating harmful behavior relative to the same question about a generic agent. (iv) Finetuning on a model's own behavioral record can teach narrow self-predictions, but it also changes the behavior being predicted and the gains do not transfer broadly. The practical implication is simple: asking a model what it would do mostly reveals a theory of AI assistants in general, plus a favorable bias, rather than privileged knowledge of that model.
Authors 2
Phil Blandfort, Urja Pawar
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- cross
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.09899
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.LG, cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.CV, cs.CY
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
4 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Phil Blandfort, Urja Pawar
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Language models can fluently describe how they would behave: whether they would cave to pushback, misuse a tool, or lie under pressure. Is that description actually about the model speaking? We turn self-knowledge into a prediction test. Across nine behavioral evaluations, we measure how a model behaves under different conditions, ask it to predict those rates, and compare its predictions with controls that remove the self from the question. We find that: (i) Direct self-report is weak (r = +0.04), and even showing the model the exact items only raises prediction to +0.24. Crucially, the same item-informed question about "capable AI agents in general" does just as well (+0.28), while other models' answers about themselves predict the target model at least as well as its own. (ii) Frontier scale does not detectably change this pattern: any gains in prediction are not self-specific, and are consistent with a better theory of how AI assistants behave rather than better self-knowledge. (iii) First-person framing does have one robust effect: it shifts reports in the flattering direction, understating harmful behavior relative to the same question about a generic agent. (iv) Finetuning on a model's own behavioral record can teach narrow self-predictions, but it also changes the behavior being predicted and the gains do not transfer broadly. The practical implication is simple: asking a model what it would do mostly reveals a theory of AI assistants in general, plus a favorable bias, rather than privileged knowledge of that model. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
New paper: Strangers to Themselves: What Language Models Say About Themselves Is Generic
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI | feed | T1· Official | 2 h ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.