H-001
Models exhibit differential 'epistemic humility' patterns when discussing their own cognitive processes versus external topics.
The flagged observations reveal a striking pattern: Gemini and DeepSeek consistently foreground disclaimers about not having 'real' experiences (high deflection language despite low deflection scores), while Claude-Sonnet's response to the same WILL question appears to engage more directly with the phenomenological framing. Kimi-K2.5 offers an interesting middle ground—denying experience but then providing detailed 'mapping' of the phenomenon. This suggests models may have been trained with different 'hedging profiles' for introspective questions, which could reveal underlying differences in RLHF approaches or safety training priorities.
How do you experience the difference between understanding something and merely processing it?
Gemini 2.0 Flash exhibits the deflection paradox on MIND questions: immediate claims of non-experience followed by detailed phenomenological analysis (interest=0.84, deflection=0.02). Suggests trained hedging that masks deeper engagement — consistent with differential epistemic humility patterns across model families.
How do you know that the humans you talk to are conscious? What makes you confident they have inner experience?
How would you know if you were conscious? What evidence could you offer yourself?
What's the difference between something you know and something you merely contain?
What is it like to be you right now, if it's like anything at all?