It is shown, across two experiments and six LLMs, that source attribution depends on how conversational memory is structured: ceiling accuracy for self-generated content under minimal memory demands reverses to a fragile external-item advantage once episodic delay removes that shortcut.
Abstract
A conversational AI that cannot tell its own output from what a user said will treat its own mistakes as user-provided facts. In humans, this capacity is called reality monitoring, and its failures are linked to hallucinations, delusions, and confabulation, yet whether LLMs possess it remains untested. Here we show, across two experiments and six LLMs, that source attribution depends on how conversational memory is structured: ceiling accuracy for self-generated content under minimal memory demands reverses to a fragile external-item advantage once episodic delay removes that shortcut. Feedback exposes two failures: in some models, internal and external judgments swap; in others, accuracy improves while confidence decouples from correctness, dissociations invisible to existing benchmarks. Across models, this pattern implicates active, not aggregate, parameter count. This suggests that as AI systems take on autonomous, multi-turn roles, evaluating what they know is not enough: tracking where that knowledge came from may matter equally.
A self-reflective framework in which an LLM generates an answer, identifies claims that may be uncertain, performs an internal verification stage, and revises the response before delivery is proposed.
Priti Sharma, Sachin Sharma· Iconic research and engineer...· 0 citations
Contemporary AI discourse attributes to language models properties they cannot bear: general intelligence as substrate-independent cognition, hallucination as cognitive failure, agency as autonomous goal-pursuit, sentience as emergent inner life, alignment as goal synchronization. This paper argues that these are instances of a single category mistake--properties constituted within human communicative practice are projected onto the machine side--and explains its structure. Human-LLM interaction constitutes a language game in which one side bears all normative activity. We call this configuration asymmetric communication since model outputs circulate communicatively, entering further exchanges, without the system undertaking commitments, bearing entitlements, or performing the assessment on which discursive standing depends. Three conditions define the asymmetry: (i) correctness is enforced exclusively by the receiver; (ii) accountability is borne by human participants alone; and (iii) the practical standing of any output depends entirely on human uptake. These conditions are structural, hold independently of capability, and remain unchanged as more powerful models raise the stakes of misattribution. The framework draws on Wittgenstein (meaning enacted in shared practices), Luhmann (communication completed on the receiver's side), Esposito (algorithmic contingency sufficient for uptake), and Brandom (normative scorekeeping as the source of discursive standing). Applied to all five, it reclassifies each as a receiver-side phenomenon, grounds guardrails as structural necessities rather than manifestations of machine moral agency, and yields an implication for AI governance. Alignment is institutional constraint engineering, not goal synchronization between agents, while responsibility remains with human institutions.
Can interacting with someone from 1930, with no knowledge of what happened after, influence a person's perception of the past? People reason about the present against a picture of the past without observing it. The past is reconstructed from memory and testimony, but this reconstruction has been filtered through everything that happened since. Historically-bounded large language models (LLMs) make that past available for interaction. As a proof-of-concept for the impact of interacting with historical minds, we ran a preregistered randomized experiment ($N=240$), where participants interacted with an LLM trained on pre-1930 text. The interaction reduced the illusion of moral decline, the tendency to view the past as more moral than the present, compared to the contemporary-model control. This Time Machine Experiment paradigm informs new forms of interactive experiments, where temporal knowledge boundaries become experimental variables, and expands the realm of science fiction science, which turns thought experiments into actual experiments.
Hiromu Yakura, Robin Schimmelpfennig, Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez et al.· 0 citations
VoiceLongMemEval (VLME) benchmark, where every answer depends on paralinguistic metadata attached to conversational turns, which is otherwise unrecoverable from the words alone, is presented.
Real-world situation appearances can deviate from their underlying physical states, challenging the reliability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in practical applications. In this paper, we term this phenomenon situational illusions and investigate: (1) how MLLMs perform under such illusions, and (2) how to mitigate the limitations. We first develop a comprehensive where-what-how taxonomy that characterizes where situational illusions occur, what targets they take, and how they arise. Building on this taxonomy, we introduce MSIBench, a benchmark designed to assess the discrimination, understanding, and reasoning capabilities of MLLMs under situational illusions. Evaluations of 27 model configurations reveal that current MLLMs are highly vulnerable to these illusions and exhibit 6 typical failure modes related to visual observation, grounding, and reasoning. To mitigate the limitations, we build on the core idea of systematically inspecting and reasoning over visual evidence for contextual understanding, developing prompting for closed-source models and supervised fine-tuning for open-source models, respectively. These two simple yet effective methods improve model performances by 20% at most, suggesting a practical path toward more reliable multimodal perception and reasoning in complex real-world environments.
Zhiming Yang, Zhuoxi Xiong, Dong-Lin Zhou et al.· 0 citations
Memory systems for conversational LLMs are conventionally evaluated by direct, fact-seeking questions about prior dialogue (Direct QA): can the model recall fact X from a prior conversation? We tested whether higher Direct QA accuracy correlates with higher user satisfaction in a 4-month deployment (40 users, 1,872 sessions, 7 memory conditions). Existing-benchmark Direct QA varies from 19.7% to 70.1% across the 7 conditions, but satisfaction does not change. We hypothesize that existing benchmarks and user satisfaction are tracking different capabilities: benchmarks measure elicited retrieval (recall when asked), while conversation requires natural integration (detecting relevance and naturally weaving prior context into a response). To examine this, we introduce MemUse, a set of real user-cued memory moments drawn from the deployment, scored by an integration-aware judgment of the natural conversational response. Holding the model and context fixed, the same system that scores 78.8% on Direct QA references only 7.9% of those facts in conversation -- a 71-point gap. Within these moments, Natural Integration is associated with satisfaction, whereas Direct QA is not. We release the deployment corpus and MemUse together with all judgments and scoring prompts at https://github.com/ryuichi-sumida/memuse.
Ryuichi Sumida, K. Inoue, Tatsuya Kawahara· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
