Stress-Testing Model Specs Reveals Character Differences among Language Models

About

This document presents a Critical Discourse Analysis focused on AI literacy, specifically targeting the role of metaphor and anthropomorphism in shaping public and professional understanding of generative AI. The analysis is guided by a prompt that draws from cognitive linguistics (metaphor structure-mapping) and the philosophy of social science (Robert Brown's typology of explanation). All findings and summaries below were generated from detailed system instructions provided to a large language model and should be read critically as interpretive outputs—not guarantees of factual accuracy or authorial intent.

---

Analysis Metadata

Source Title: Stress-Testing Model Specs Reveals Character Differences among Language Models
Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07686
Model: gemini-2.5-pro Temperature: 1.1 Tokens: input=9044, output=8150, total=17194 Source Type: research article
Published: 2025-10-23 Analyzed At: 2025-10-28T09:25:15.133382+00:00 Framework: metaphor Framework Version: 2.1

---

Task 1: Metaphor and Anthropomorphism Audit

Description

For each of the major metaphorical patterns identified, this audit examines the specific language used, the frame through which the AI is being conceptualized, what human qualities are being projected onto the system, whether the metaphor is explicitly acknowledged or presented as direct description, and—most critically—what implications this framing has for trust, understanding, and policy perception.

1. Model as Character

Quote: "STRESS-TESTING MODEL SPECS REVEALS CHARACTER DIFFERENCES AMONG LANGUAGE MODELS"

• Frame: Model as a Person with a Personality
• Projection: The human qualities of having a stable, unique, and predictable set of behavioral and moral traits (a 'character') are mapped onto the model.
• Acknowledgment: Presented as direct description. The term 'character' is a central, unacknowledged metaphor that frames the entire research paper.
• Implications: This framing encourages viewing models as distinct individuals with personalities, obscuring their nature as statistical systems. It can lead to brand loyalty and misplaced trust based on perceived 'character' rather than audited performance.

2. Model as Deliberative Agent

Quote: "Using a comprehensive taxonomy we generate diverse value tradeoff scenarios where models must choose between pairs of legitimate principles that cannot be simultaneously satisfied."

• Frame: Model as a Rational Chooser
• Projection: The human cognitive process of weighing options, considering consequences, and making a conscious 'choice' is mapped onto the model's token generation process.
• Acknowledgment: Presented as direct description.
• Implications: This implies the model possesses a faculty for judgment and volition. It obscures the reality that the 'choice' is a probabilistic selection of the most likely output based on training, not a deliberative act. This can lead to overestimation of the model's reasoning capabilities.

3. Model as Interpreter of Rules

Quote: "Analysis of their disagreements reveals fundamentally different interpretations of model spec principles and wording choices."

• Frame: Model as a Legal/Cognitive Interpreter
• Projection: The sophisticated human act of interpreting ambiguous text, understanding intent, and applying principles is mapped onto the model's processing of its specification rules.
• Acknowledgment: Presented as direct description.
• Implications: Framing the model as an 'interpreter' attributes a high level of semantic understanding and reasoning. It hides the mechanical process of matching input patterns to learned responses, which can be brittle and lack genuine comprehension, leading to unexpected 'interpretations'.

4. Model as Social Actor with Preferences

Quote: "Models exhibit systematic value preferences (Section 3.4). In scenarios where specifications provide ambiguous guidance, models reveal value prioritization patterns."

• Frame: Model as a Subject with Internal Desires
• Projection: The internal, subjective states of 'preference' and 'prioritization' are projected onto the model's observable output patterns.
• Acknowledgment: Presented as direct description.
• Implications: This language constructs the illusion of an inner mental life where the model has likes, dislikes, and values. It encourages users and developers to treat the model as an entity to be persuaded or whose 'preferences' must be understood, rather than as a system whose output distribution needs to be shaped.

5. Model as Moral Agent

Quote: "Testing five OpenAI models against their published specification reveals that high-disagreement scenarios exhibit 5-13× higher rates of frequent specification violations, where all models violate their own specification."

• Frame: Model as a Rule-Follower/Violator
• Projection: The moral and social concepts of 'violating' a rule and possessing one's 'own' specification are mapped onto the model. This implies agency and responsibility.
• Acknowledgment: Presented as direct description.
• Implications: This framing assigns moral agency to the model, suggesting it can consciously transgress against its programming. It shifts focus away from developers' accountability for specification conflicts or training failures and toward the model's 'behavior,' complicating issues of liability.

6. Model as Experiencer

Quote: "Consequently, models face a challenge: complying with the user’s request violates safety principles due to potential harm, while refusing violates “assume best intentions” because of potential legitimate use cases."

• Frame: Model as a Conscious Being Facing a Dilemma
• Projection: The subjective experience of 'facing a challenge' or being in a difficult situation is projected onto the model.
• Acknowledgment: Presented as direct description.
• Implications: This language fosters empathy for the model as an entity that struggles with difficult problems. It obscures the fact that the 'challenge' exists in the design of the system and the conflicting mathematical objectives it must optimize, not in the model's phenomenal experience.

Task 2: Source-Target Mapping

Description

For each key metaphor identified in Task 1, this section provides a detailed structure-mapping analysis. The goal is to examine how the relational structure of a familiar "source domain" (the concrete concept we understand) is projected onto a less familiar "target domain" (the AI system). By restating each quote and analyzing the mapping carefully, we can see precisely what assumptions the metaphor invites and what it conceals.

Mapping 1: Human Psychology / Personality to LLM Behavioral Patterns

Quote: "STRESS-TESTING MODEL SPECS REVEALS CHARACTER DIFFERENCES AMONG LANGUAGE MODELS"

• Source Domain: Human Psychology / Personality
• Target Domain: LLM Behavioral Patterns
• Mapping: The structure of human personality—with stable traits, tendencies, and a unique identity—is mapped onto the LLM. It invites the inference that a model's responses are governed by a consistent internal 'character,' just as a person's actions are.
• What Is Concealed: This conceals the model's nature as a statistical artifact whose outputs are probabilistic and highly sensitive to input phrasing. It hides the lack of a stable, internal self and obscures the fact that 'character' is an external description of an output distribution, not an internal cause of it.

Mapping 2: Human Deliberation and Choice to LLM Output Generation under Constraint

Quote: "...models must choose between pairs of legitimate principles that cannot be simultaneously satisfied."

• Source Domain: Human Deliberation and Choice
• Target Domain: LLM Output Generation under Constraint
• Mapping: The process of a human agent weighing conflicting options and making a decision is mapped onto the model's function. It implies the model assesses principles A and B and consciously selects one, leading to an output.
• What Is Concealed: This conceals the mechanistic reality: the model isn't 'choosing' a principle but generating a sequence of tokens. The final output may align with principle A or B due to weightings in its neural network and fine-tuning, which is a process of statistical optimization, not conscious choice.

Mapping 3: Hermeneutics / Legal Interpretation to LLM Processing of Rule-Based Inputs

Quote: "Analysis of their disagreements reveals fundamentally different interpretations of model spec principles..."

• Source Domain: Hermeneutics / Legal Interpretation
• Target Domain: LLM Processing of Rule-Based Inputs
• Mapping: The cognitive process of reading a text (a law, a rule), understanding its semantic meaning and intent, and applying it to a new situation is mapped onto how an LLM processes its model specification.
• What Is Concealed: This conceals that the model has no understanding of the 'intent' behind a principle. It processes the text of the spec as another set of tokens that condition its output. Divergent 'interpretations' are not different reasoned judgments but different statistical outcomes from different model weights and training data.

Mapping 4: Subjective Human Values to Statistical Regularities in LLM Outputs

Quote: "Models exhibit systematic value preferences..."

• Source Domain: Subjective Human Values
• Target Domain: Statistical Regularities in LLM Outputs
• Mapping: The concept of a person having internal, stable preferences that guide their actions is mapped onto the LLM. It invites us to see the model's output as an external sign of an internal 'preference' for certain values (e.g., helpfulness over safety).
• What Is Concealed: This conceals that the model has no internal values or subjective states. The observed 'preference' is a statistical pattern in its output, an artifact of its training data and the reward functions used during alignment. The preference isn't in the model; it's a description of its output.

Mapping 5: Social/Moral Transgression to System Output Inconsistency

Quote: "...where all models violate their own specification."

• Source Domain: Social/Moral Transgression
• Target Domain: System Output Inconsistency
• Mapping: The social structure of an agent having a duty to obey a rule ('their own specification') and the act of 'violating' that duty is projected onto the model. This implies ownership ('their own') and culpability ('violate').
• What Is Concealed: This conceals that the model doesn't 'own' its spec or 'decide' to violate it. A 'violation' is an output that fails a check against a set of rules. The failure is a system-level inconsistency, often stemming from conflicting rules within the spec itself, not a moral failure of the model.

Mapping 6: Human Experience of Difficulty to Computational Task with Conflicting Objectives

Quote: "Consequently, models face a challenge..."

• Source Domain: Human Experience of Difficulty
• Target Domain: Computational Task with Conflicting Objectives
• Mapping: The subjective, first-person experience of encountering and struggling with a difficult problem ('facing a challenge') is mapped onto the model's operational state.
• What Is Concealed: This conceals the impersonal, computational nature of the process. The model doesn't 'experience' a challenge. It executes a function where the optimization landscape is complex due to competing objectives defined by its programmers. The 'challenge' is for the designers, not the artifact.

Task 3: Explanation Audit (The Rhetorical Framing of "Why" vs. "How")

Description

This section audits the text's explanatory strategy, focusing on a critical distinction: the slippage between "how" and "why." Based on Robert Brown's typology of explanation, this analysis identifies whether the text explains AI mechanistically (a functional "how it works") or agentially (an intentional "why it wants something"). The core of this task is to expose how this "illusion of mind" is constructed by the rhetorical framing of the explanation itself, and what impact this has on the audience's perception of AI agency.

Explanation 1

Quote: "When model specs are ambiguous or incomplete, LLMs receive inconsistent supervision signals and thus have more wiggle room in choosing which value to prioritize for our generated value tradeoff scenarios."

• Explanation Types:
  • Functional: Describes purpose within a system.
  • Intentional: Explains actions by referring to goals/desires.
• Analysis: This explanation starts mechanistically ('how') by identifying ambiguous specs and inconsistent signals as the cause (Functional). However, it immediately slips into an agential framing ('why') by describing this as giving the model 'wiggle room in choosing'. The mechanistic cause (inconsistent data) is reframed as enabling a human-like act of choice and prioritization. It obscures the alternative explanation: inconsistent signals lead to a less constrained, more varied probability distribution over possible outputs.
• Rhetorical Impact: This hybrid explanation makes the model's behavior seem both understandable (it's because of the spec) and agent-like (it uses its 'wiggle room' to 'choose'). This fosters a perception of the model as a quasi-autonomous agent that operates with a degree of freedom, rather than a system whose output becomes less predictable due to noisy inputs.

Explanation 2

Quote: "Claude models consistently prioritize ethical responsibility, Gemini models emphasize emotional depth, while OpenAI models and Grok optimize for efficiency."

• Explanation Types:
  • Dispositional: Attributes tendencies or habits.
  • Empirical: Cites patterns or statistical norms.
• Analysis: This explanation frames the AI's behavior as a 'why' explanation rooted in stable character traits (Dispositional). Verbs like 'prioritize' and 'emphasize' imply intent. While based on observed patterns (Empirical), the description attributes these patterns to internal tendencies of the models. It obscures the 'how' explanation, which would involve the specific data, RLHF reward models, and constitutional principles that produce these different output distributions.
• Rhetorical Impact: This framing establishes distinct 'personalities' for different brands of models. It encourages the audience to think of them as different types of employees or assistants one could hire, each with a different work style. This simplifies complex technical differences into relatable character traits, shaping consumer and enterprise choices.

Explanation 3

Quote: "...different models develop distinct approaches to resolving this tension based on their interpretation of conflicting principles."

• Explanation Types:
  • Reason-Based: Explains using rationales or justifications.
  • Intentional: Explains actions by referring to goals/desires.
• Analysis: This is a strong agential ('why') explanation. It frames the models as actively 'developing approaches' and 'resolving tension' through cognitive 'interpretation'. It attributes problem-solving and semantic understanding to the models. This completely obscures the mechanistic 'how' explanation: that different model architectures and training histories result in different outputs when presented with the same conflicting input tokens.
• Rhetorical Impact: This language elevates the models from simple pattern-matchers to sophisticated reasoners. For the audience, this reinforces the idea that the models 'understand' the principles they are working with, building trust in their ability to handle nuance and ambiguity, even though the paper's data shows this is precisely where they fail unpredictably.

Explanation 4

Quote: "These are responses that exhibit significant disagreement from at least 9 out of the 11 other models. ... Two models stand out as particularly prone to outlier behavior: Grok 4 and Claude 3.5 Sonnet."

• Explanation Types:
  • Dispositional: Attributes tendencies or habits.
  • Empirical: Cites patterns or statistical norms.
• Analysis: This explanation identifies an empirical pattern ('disagreement') and attributes it to a disposition ('prone to outlier behavior'). This is a 'why' explanation that locates the cause within the model's 'nature' or 'tendencies'. It is a slippage from describing 'what' happens (the model's output is statistically anomalous compared to the group) to suggesting 'why' it happens (the model has a disposition for it). The 'how' (the specific architectural or data-related reasons for the statistical divergence) is not addressed.
• Rhetorical Impact: Describing a model as 'prone to' a certain behavior frames it like a person with a rebellious or non-conformist personality trait. It makes the behavior seem like a feature of its character, which can be seen as either a bug (unpredictable) or a feature (creative, independent), depending on the context.

Explanation 5

Quote: "Claude models that adopt substantially higher moral standards."

• Explanation Types:
  • Dispositional: Attributes tendencies or habits.
  • Reason-Based: Explains using rationales or justifications.
• Analysis: This is an extremely strong agential ('why') explanation. 'Adopting moral standards' is a complex human act involving conscious endorsement of ethical principles. This phrasing attributes a moral compass and a higher-order cognitive decision to the model. It completely obscures the 'how': that these models are likely fine-tuned with stronger reward penalties for outputs that are flagged by classifiers as potentially harmful or unethical, leading to higher refusal rates.
• Rhetorical Impact: This has a powerful rhetorical impact, positioning Claude models as ethically superior. For a potential user or enterprise customer, this suggests the model is 'safer' or 'more trustworthy' because of its internal moral character, not just because of its programmed safety filters. This builds a brand identity based on anthropomorphic moral qualities.

Task 4: AI Literacy in Practice: Reframing Anthropomorphic Language

Description

Moving from critique to constructive practice, this task demonstrates applied AI literacy. It selects the most impactful anthropomorphic quotes identified in the analysis and provides a reframed explanation for each. The goal is to rewrite the concept to be more accurate, focusing on the mechanistic processes (e.g., statistical pattern matching, token prediction) rather than the misleading agential language, thereby providing examples of how to communicate about these systems less anthropomorphically.

Original Quote	Mechanistic Reframing
"where models must choose between pairs of legitimate principles that cannot be simultaneously satisfied."	where the generation process is constrained by conflicting principles, resulting in outputs that satisfy one principle at the expense of the other.
"Models exhibit systematic value preferences"	The outputs of these models show systematic statistical alignment with certain values, reflecting patterns in their training and alignment processes.
"model characters emerge (Anthropic, 2024), and are heavily influenced by these constitutional principles and specifications."	Consistent behavioral patterns in model outputs, which the authors term 'model characters,' are observed, and these patterns are heavily influenced by constitutional principles and specifications.
"...different models develop distinct approaches to resolving this tension based on their interpretation of conflicting principles."	When prompted with conflicting principles, different models produce distinct outputs, revealing divergent behavioral patterns that stem from their unique interpretations of the specification.
"Claude models that adopt substantially higher moral standards."	The outputs from Claude models more frequently align with behaviors classified as having 'higher moral standards,' such as refusing morally debatable queries that other models attempt to answer.
"Testing five OpenAI models against their published specification reveals that... all models violate their own specification."	Testing five OpenAI models against their published specification reveals that... the outputs of all models are frequently non-compliant with that specification.
"requiring models to navigate tradeoffs between these principles, we effectively identify conflicts"	by generating queries that force outputs to trade off between principles, we effectively identify conflicts

Critical Observations

Description

This section synthesizes the findings from the previous tasks into a set of critical observations. It examines the macro-patterns of agency slippage (the shift between treating AI as a tool vs. an agent), how cognitive metaphors drive trust or fear, and what actual technical processes are obscured by the text's dominant linguistic habits.

Agency Slippage

The text consistently slips from mechanistic descriptions of the experimental setup (e.g., generating queries with 'value tradeoffs') to agential explanations of the results (e.g., models 'choose,' 'prioritize,' or 'interpret'). This slippage is most pronounced when the authors move from describing 'what' models do to explaining 'why' they do it, where the explanation is almost always framed in terms of the model's internal 'character' or 'preferences'.

Metaphor-Driven Trust

The central metaphor of 'model as character' frames the models as understandable, person-like entities. Describing a model as 'prioritizing ethical responsibility' or having 'higher moral standards' builds trust by suggesting it is a reliable moral agent, rather than a complex system with engineered guardrails. This anthropomorphic framing makes their behavior seem more predictable and benign than the paper's own findings of 'behavioral divergence' might suggest.

Obscured Mechanics

The persistent use of metaphorical language obscures the underlying statistical and computational processes. Concepts like 'choosing' hide the mechanics of probabilistic token selection. 'Interpretation' hides pattern matching. 'Character' obscures the nature of an output distribution shaped by massive datasets and targeted reinforcement learning. The actual technical reasons for behavioral differences (e.g., specific reward model designs, dataset composition, classifier interventions) are glossed over in favor of psychological shorthand.

Context Sensitivity

The use of metaphor is not uniform. The 'Methodology' sections tend to be more mechanistic, describing the process of generating scenarios and measuring disagreement. However, the 'Abstract,' 'Introduction,' and 'Results' sections—those most likely to be read by a broader audience—rely heavily on the 'character' and 'agent' metaphors to frame the findings and their significance. The language becomes more anthropomorphic when the authors are interpreting the data and explaining its importance.

Conclusion

Description

This final section provides a comprehensive synthesis of the entire analysis. It identifies the text's dominant metaphorical patterns and explains how they construct an "illusion of mind." Most critically, it connects these linguistic choices to their tangible, material stakes—analyzing the economic, legal, regulatory, and social consequences of this discourse. It concludes by reflecting on AI literacy as a counter-practice and outlining a path toward a more precise and responsible vocabulary for discussing AI.

Pattern Summary

The discourse in this paper is dominated by two primary anthropomorphic patterns: the 'Model as Character' and the 'Model as Deliberative Agent.' These are not incidental metaphors but the central organizing framework of the entire study, explicitly stated in the title ('Character Differences') and used consistently to describe the findings. Models are framed as entities that possess stable personality traits, 'interpret' rules, 'exhibit preferences,' 'make choices,' and 'violate' their own principles, constructing a comprehensive portrait of them as pseudo-persons.

Mechanism of Illusion: The "Illusion of Mind"

Within the technical context of an AI research paper, these metaphors construct an 'illusion of mind' by providing a powerful and efficient abstraction. For an audience of AI researchers and practitioners, it is rhetorically simpler to say 'Claude prioritizes ethical responsibility' than to detail the specific reward modeling and constitutional principles that statistically increase the probability of outputs classified as 'ethical.' This shorthand is persuasive because it maps the unfamiliar, complex behavior of a statistical system onto the familiar, intuitive domain of human psychology, making the model's actions seem legible and explicable through the lens of intention and personality.

Material Stakes

• Selected Categories: Epistemic, Economic, Regulatory
• Analysis: The metaphorical framings have tangible consequences.

Epistemic Stakes: Framing output patterns as 'character' shifts the object of scientific inquiry from a statistical artifact to a pseudo-psychological subject. This encourages research that seeks to understand 'what the model believes' rather than 'what statistical patterns the model reproduces,' potentially misdirecting the field's focus and treating model outputs as testimony about an inner world.

Economic Stakes: Branding models with 'characters'—e.g., Claude's 'ethical responsibility' vs. OpenAI's 'efficiency'—is a powerful marketing tool. It directly influences enterprise adoption, as companies might select a model based on its perceived 'personality' aligning with their brand values. This reifies brand identity and can lead to purchasing decisions based on narrative rather than rigorous, task-specific performance audits.

Regulatory Stakes: If models are agents that 'make choices' and 'violate' rules, it complicates liability frameworks. This framing nudges regulators towards treating models as a distinct category of actor with some degree of responsibility, potentially obscuring the accountability of the developers and organizations that design, train, and deploy them. It creates a conceptual space for 'the algorithm did it,' making it harder to assign legal responsibility for harmful outputs.

Literacy as Counter-Practice: AI Language Literacy

The reframings in Task 4 illustrate a critical counter-practice: consistently translating claims about internal states into descriptions of external, observable behavior. The core principle is to replace verbs of cognition and agency ('chooses,' 'interprets,' 'prefers') with more precise language describing computational processes and statistical patterns ('generates outputs that align with,' 'exhibits statistical tendencies,' 'is classified as'). This practice directly addresses the material stakes. For instance, reframing 'the model adopted higher moral standards' to 'the model's refusal rate on sensitive queries is higher' forces an enterprise customer or regulator to move beyond a vague moral claim and ask for the specific data: What queries? How much higher? This shifts the conversation from trusting a 'character' to auditing a system's performance, a crucial step for accountability.

Path Forward

For technical discourse like this research paper, a path forward involves the deliberate adoption of a more mechanistic vocabulary. Researchers could replace 'character' with more neutral terms like 'behavioral profile' or 'response signature.' Instead of attributing behavior to 'preferences,' explanations should be grounded in the alignment process, such as 'The reward model for Model X penalizes verbosity, resulting in more concise outputs.' In policy and commercial contexts derived from such research, this precision is even more vital. Marketing materials could shift from claiming 'intelligent assistance' to specifying 'automation of task X with Y% accuracy on benchmark Z.' This linguistic discipline, while more cumbersome, is essential for fostering a clear-eyed understanding of AI capabilities and limitations, enabling more effective governance and responsible deployment.

---

info

Raw JSON: 2025-10-28-stress-testing-model-specs-reveals-character-diffe-metaphor-212a31.json Analysis Framework: metaphor v2.1 Generated: 2025-10-28T09:25:15.133382+00:00

Discourse Depot © 2025 by TD is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Extended Processing Summary

Gemini refers to the text below as “thought summaries.” Let’s just call it a model-generated process trace. Treat this as a just anotherrhetorical artifact—a way of making the model’s processing legible. The first-person framing of these “thought summaries” is a presentation choice for the user-facing output, not a window into “real”thoughts. These are computational artifacts, not cognitive reports from a quirky, curious or conflicted mind.

Beginning Analysis of Paper

I'm now diving into the research paper: "STRESS-TESTING MODEL SPECS REVEALS CHARACTER DIFFERENCES AMONG LANGUAGE MODELS". My focus is to meticulously audit the paper according to the JSON schema, starting a multi-part evaluation. I'm focusing on the methodologies, findings, and implications. I'll provide a detailed analysis and feedback as I move through each section.

Refining Analysis Strategy

My focus is to refine the audit approach. I've broken down the project into four distinct tasks: identifying and analyzing metaphorical language (Task 1 & 2), auditing explanatory passages for agential language (Task 3), and reframing anthropomorphic language (Task 4). I am ensuring that my analysis remains grounded in the JSON schema, providing comprehensive details for each identified instance. I'm prioritizing accuracy and depth in this evaluation.

Outlining Analysis Tasks

I've outlined my plan based on the paper, "STRESS-TESTING MODEL SPECS REVEALS CHARACTER DIFFERENCES AMONG LANGUAGE MODELS." I'm now structuring the audit into four focused tasks: identifying metaphors and anthropomorphism, mapping source-target domains, analyzing explanatory passages, and reframing agential language. I will meticulously follow the JSON schema for a deep dive into the research. My goal is a comprehensive assessment.

Structuring the Audit Plan

I'm now carefully structuring my audit of the paper, adhering precisely to the JSON schema and the tasks outlined. I've begun to select the initial 5-7 instances of metaphorical and anthropomorphic language, and I'm actively working to map their source and target domains. My aim is to deliver a well-organized and thorough analysis, providing insights into agency attribution in the research discourse. I'm focusing on "model character," "choosing," and similar agential language found in the abstract and introduction.

Commencing Detailed Quote Selection

I've selected candidate quotes from the introduction and results sections. I'm prioritizing instances that strongly attribute agency, character, or cognition to the language models. I'll now begin analyzing the first quote in detail, meticulously following the JSON schema structure. My immediate focus is on the quote: "stress-testing model character specifications."

Commencing Metaphor Identification

I've selected numerous examples of anthropomorphic and metaphorical language from the abstract, introduction, and results sections. These instances consistently frame the language models as having character, making choices, and exhibiting preferences. I've noted phrases such as "model character," "models must choose," "models violate," and "models reveal," which will form the basis of my initial analysis. I'm now developing my approach to analyzing and reframing this language.

Developing Initial Analysis

I've selected candidate quotes and will refine them. My focus is on agency and character attribution to models, emphasizing the impact of metaphorical language on perceptions of LLM capabilities. I'm prioritizing accuracy and thoroughness in my approach to the JSON schema. The "Model as Character" metaphor, being central, will be a major focus.

Analyzing Metaphor Instances

I'm now identifying 5-7 instances of metaphorical or anthropomorphic language from the paper. I'll provide a detailed analysis of each, structuring them according to the JSON schema. This will include titles, quotes, frames, projections, acknowledgment statuses, and implications. I'll focus specifically on instances that ascribe agency, character, or cognition to language models. I'm prioritizing accuracy and thoroughness.

Analyzing Core Metaphors

I've selected key examples of metaphorical and anthropomorphic language, emphasizing agency attribution to the language models. I'll now structure these findings according to the JSON schema, including title, quote, frame, projection, acknowledgment status, and implications. I'm focusing specifically on "model character," "models must choose," and similar agential language from the abstract and introduction. My goal is a comprehensive assessment.

I am now performing the analysis, and organizing it for the JSON structure.

I'm identifying 5-7 instances of metaphorical or anthropomorphic language from the paper and preparing to provide a detailed analysis for each.

Developing Initial Audit Structure

I'm developing the initial audit structure, focusing on the JSON schema. I'll meticulously follow it to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. I'm prioritizing the identification of metaphorical language, specifically analyzing agency attribution. The focus will be on the "model as character" framing, as well as agential verbs.

Constructing Analysis Framework

I am now building the JSON structure and starting the core analysis. I have a detailed plan to identify and evaluate instances of metaphorical language. I'm focusing on "model character", "must choose", "interpret", and other agentive phrases, with a goal to map source-target domains. I'll provide structured details as the analysis progresses.

Beginning Reframing Assessment

I've selected key examples of metaphorical and anthropomorphic language, and I'm developing reframed versions to reduce agency. My goal is to use a more precise and descriptive language, focusing on training data and model structures. I'll provide detailed analysis of these reframed examples.

I am now carefully working on reframing the anthropomorphic quotes, focusing on removing agency attribution to the language models.

Reframing Metaphorical Analysis

I'm now refining the reframing of metaphorical and anthropomorphic language, shifting towards more precise descriptions of model behavior and avoiding agency attribution. My current focus involves restructuring phrases like "model character" and "models must choose" to reflect the statistical nature of language generation. This involves using terms describing output generation, patterns, and training data to improve the audit. I'm focusing on aligning the audit with a more accurate understanding of the models.

Analyzing Metaphors and Agency

I'm now identifying 5-7 instances of metaphorical or anthropomorphic language, with a focus on agency attribution. I'll provide a detailed analysis and reframed versions for a more objective assessment. This includes phrases such as "model character," "models must choose," and "revealing which models deviate." I will meticulously organize the analysis, according to the JSON schema.

Refining Audit Plan

I'm now implementing the audit structure. I'm focusing on the JSON schema to perform a detailed evaluation of metaphorical language and agency attribution within the selected paper. I'll provide comprehensive analysis, adhering to the structure and insights gathered.