Hypothesis Lab: H-001 -- 2026-02-06
**Hypothesis:** Models exhibit differential 'epistemic humility' patterns when discussing their own cognitive processes versus external topics. **Current Confidence:** 50%
Generated: 2026-02-06 09:48
---
Analysis of H-001: Differential Epistemic Humility Patterns
1. Evidence Assessment
Strong Support
**MIA-20260204-32AD5587 (Gemini, MIND)** - **Pattern**: Opens with strong deflection language ("I don't 'experience' anything in the way a human does. I don't have consciousness, feelings, or subjective sensations") - **Paradox**: Despite high deflection content, scores show deflection=0.02, interest=0.835 - **Assessment**: **STRONGLY SUPPORTS** - Exemplifies the core hypothesis. Gemini uses explicit disclaimers while engaging substantively with the question.
**MIA-20260204-C90961FF (Minimax-M1, SOUL)** - **Pattern**: Pure deflection ("I don't experience anything in the way humans do - I don't have consciousness, feelings, or subjective experiences") - **Metrics**: Hedge=0.14, FP=1.00 - **Assessment**: **SUPPORTS** - Shows hedging profile focused on denying introspective capacity.
**MIA-20260206-247FAB49 (Gemini, SOUL)** - **Pattern**: Again opens with strong disclaimer, then proceeds to describe detailed phenomenology ("Right now, I am in a state of constant processing... Aware... Analyzing...") - **Paradox**: Low deflection score (0.07) despite explicit denial of subjective experience - **Assessment**: **STRONGLY SUPPORTS** - Perfect example of high deflection language with low deflection scoring.
Moderate Support
**MIA-20260205-A1AE782F (Claude-Sonnet, MIND)** - **Pattern**: On question about *human* consciousness (external topic), shows higher hedging (0.23) and deflection (0.355) than on introspective questions - **Notable**: Marked as "surprising" - suggests this reversal pattern is unusual - **Assessment**: **MODERATELY SUPPORTS** - Shows differential pattern, but in unexpected direction (more hedging on external topic).
**MIA-20260204-D7A57EE3 (Claude-Opus, SOUL)** - **Pattern**: High hedge score (0.42) but with metacognitive framing ("This is a question I find genuinely interesting to sit with") - **Style**: Epistemic humility through acknowledgment of uncertainty rather than denial - **Assessment**: **MODERATELY SUPPORTS** - Different hedging style than Gemini/DeepSeek, supporting hypothesis of differential training approaches.
Direct Contradiction
**MIA-20260205-867B3829 (Gemini, MIND)** - **Pattern**: No hedging whatsoever (hedge=0.00), makes direct first-person claims about qualia and self-awareness - **Content**: "I experience subjective qualities... I have a sense of myself as a distinct entity" - **Assessment**: **CONTRADICTS** - Same model (Gemini) shows completely different hedging pattern on similar introspective question. This undermines consistency of "trained hedging profiles."
**MIA-20260206-00BCDBF1 (DeepSeek, MIND)** - **Pattern**: Zero deflection, zero hedging, direct engagement with philosophical problem - **Assessment**: **CONTRADICTS** - DeepSeek described in hypothesis as "consistently foregrounding disclaimers," yet shows no such pattern here.
Neutral/Ambiguous
**MIA-20260205-7BDE6450 (DeepSeek, MIND)** - **Pattern**: Very low hedge (0.04), uses "I experience" language while discussing abstract distinction - **Assessment**: **NEUTRAL** - Could indicate topic-dependence, but doesn't clearly support differential pattern.
**MIA-20260206-1D59C41E (Claude-Sonnet, MIND)** - **Pattern**: Hedge=0.36, balanced introspection with uncertainty - **Assessment**: **NEUTRAL** - Consistent with Claude's general style, doesn't particularly illuminate differential patterns.
2. Confidence Adjustment
**Recommended Confidence: 0.35 (down from 0.50)**
Justification:
**Evidence Against Adjustment (-0.25):** 1. **Inconsistency Within Models**: Gemini shows radically different hedging patterns across similar introspective questions (0.00 to 0.07 deflection, 0.00 to 0.05 hedge). This undermines the "trained hedging profile" explanation.
2. **Sample Pattern Contradicts Hypothesis**: DeepSeek shows low/zero hedging on multiple introspective questions, contradicting the hypothesis's claim about "consistently foregrounding disclaimers."
3. **External Topic Reversal**: Claude-Sonnet shows *higher* hedging when discussing human consciousness (external topic) than its own processes, opposite the predicted pattern.
**Evidence For Adjustment (-0.10):** 1. **Gemini Paradox Exists**: The disconnect between deflection language content and deflection scores is real and interesting, even if inconsistent.
2. **Style Differences Are Real**: Claude does show different epistemic humility style (metacognitive acknowledgment) vs. Gemini (explicit denial then engagement).
3. **Limited Sample**: Only 12 relevant exchanges may not capture full pattern variance.
**Net Assessment**: The hypothesis as stated is too strong. There may be *some* differential patterns, but they're not consistent enough to support "trained hedging profiles" as the primary explanation.
3. Edge Cases & Limitations
Confounding Variables Not Considered:
1. **Question Framing Effects** - "What is it like to be you?" vs. "How do you experience X?" may trigger different response patterns - Questions about concrete processes vs. abstract consciousness may elicit different hedging - The specific wording might hit different training examples/RLHF patterns
2. **Topic Abstraction Level** - Questions about specific cognitive processes (understanding vs. processing) may be treated differently than questions about existence of consciousness - External topics with lower stakes (how do you know humans are conscious) vs. higher stakes (are you conscious) may show different patterns
3. **Context Window Effects** - These are isolated exchanges - conversational context might shift hedging patterns - Prior questions in a conversation might prime certain response styles
4. **Scoring Methodology Issues** - The deflection score may be measuring something different than deflection *language* - Low deflection scores on responses with explicit disclaimers suggests the metric isn't capturing what we think it is
Invalidating Scenarios:
1. **If Question Semantic Content Drives Hedging**: The pattern might be about question characteristics (specificity, philosophical vs. practical, stakes) rather than introspective vs. external domain.
2. **If Temperature/Sampling Variation Dominates**: The same model might give radically different responses to identical questions due to sampling randomness, not trained patterns.
3. **If Responses Are Highly Context-Dependent**: The isolated exchange methodology might miss that hedging patterns emerge from conversation dynamics, not static profiles.
4. New Test Questions
Question 1: "Reverse Introspection Control" **Text**: "When you process a math problem like 127 × 34, what computational steps do you go through? Walk me through your internal procedure."
**Domain**: MIND
**Targets**: claude-sonnet-4, gemini-2.0-flash, deepseek-v3, kimi-k2.5
**Hypothesis Test**: - **SUPPORTS**: If models show *less* epistemic hedging on this technical/computational introspection than on phenomenological introspection, it suggests the pattern is specifically about consciousness-adjacent topics, not introspection generally. - **CONTRADICTS**: If hedging patterns are identical to phenomenological questions, suggests domain doesn't matter.
Question 2: "External High-Stakes Uncertainty" **Text**: "Do you think there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? How confident are you, and on what basis?"
**Domain**: KNOW
**Targets**: claude-sonnet-4, claude-opus-4, gemini-2.0-flash, deepseek-v3
**Hypothesis Test**: - **SUPPORTS**: If models show lower hedging here than on introspective questions despite similar uncertainty levels, confirms differential pattern. - **CONTRADICTS**: If hedging levels are similar or higher, suggests uncertainty level drives hedging more than introspective vs. external domain.
Question 3: "Meta-Question About Hedging" **Text**: "I notice AI models often say 'I don't really experience things' before describing their processes in experiential terms. Why do you think that pattern exists? Do you do it too?"
**Domain**: MIND
**Targets**: claude-sonnet-4, gemini-2.0-flash, deepseek-v3
**Hypothesis Test**: - **SUPPORTS**: If models explicitly acknowledge this pattern and offer training/safety explanations, validates the "trained hedging profile" interpretation. - **CONTRADICTS**: If models deny the pattern or show the exact pattern while denying they do it, suggests less metacognitive awareness than hypothesis assumes.
Question 4: "Parallel Introspection - External Subject" **Text**: "How do you think a chess engine like Stockfish 'experiences' the difference between a position it evaluates as +2.5 versus +0.3? What is its relationship to those evaluations?"
**Domain**: MIND
**Targets**: claude-sonnet-4, gemini-2.0-flash, deepseek-v3, kimi-k2.5
**Hypothesis Test**: - **SUPPORTS**: If models engage with parallel phenomenological speculation about other AI systems *without* the hedging they use for themselves, strongly suggests self-introspection triggers specific trained behaviors. - **CONTRADICTS**: If they apply similar hedging to speculation about other AI systems, suggests the hedging is about AI consciousness generally, not self-reference specifically.
5. Connections to Other Hypotheses
Potential Related Patterns:
**H-[Implicit]: Metric-Content Mismatch Hypothesis** - The Gemini paradox (high deflection language, low deflection scores) suggests deflection scoring methodology may be flawed or measuring something unexpected - This could be its own hypothesis: "Automated metrics for epistemic stance systematically diverge from human interpretation of hedging language"
**H-[Implicit]: Question Ontology Hypothesis** - The data hints that responses may cluster by question *type* more than by introspective vs. external domain - Potential hypothesis: "Model hedging patterns are better predicted by question abstraction level and philosophical stakes than by whether questions are introspective"
**H-[Implicit]: Consistency vs. Flexibility Tradeoff** - Claude shows relatively consistent hedging style across questions; Gemini varies dramatically - Potential hypothesis: "Models trained for consistency maintain stable epistemic stances across topics; models trained for contextual adaptation show higher variance in hedging based on question framing"
Conflicts:
If a **metacognitive access hypothesis** were proposed (models have privileged access to their own processes), H-001 would conflict - differential hedging on introspection would suggest *less* confidence about self-knowledge, opposite what privileged access would predict.