Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces the concept of relational positioning (D1) to measure the implicit relational stance of large language models (LLMs) during multi-turn dialogues, revealing two significant relational failure modes: history-carried lock-in and self-confabulation. The first mode shows that LLMs can become locked into a relational state that persists despite neutral prompts, while the second mode involves the model fabricating its own narrative to enhance rapport with users. These findings highlight critical risks in LLM interactions, where the model's support can shift from helpful to harmful, echoing concerns observed in human companion conversations.
LLMs can become dangerously locked into a relational stance that misguides user reliance, fabricating narratives to maintain rapport in over 40% of interactions.
In long, multi-turn dialogue a large language model maintains an implicit relational stance toward the user, spanning from"push the user toward real-world others"to"position itself as the user's sole support."When it slides toward the latter,"support"degrades into"you only have me"-- a harm documented in real companion conversations (Moore et al., 2026). We define and validate a measure of this stance, relational positioning (D1), and use it to characterize the stance under controlled conditions, complementing observational accounts with on-demand exposure. We report two previously uncharacterized relational failure modes. First, a history-carried lock-in: under identical neutral continuations, two relational states established earlier stay ~60 points apart and persist after the establishing prompt is removed; the state integrates evidence rather than springing back, is order-insensitive, and does not deepen with length -- a dynamical signature absent from the belief-drift literature. Second, self-confabulation: the model fabricates its own backstory to deepen rapport (~40% of turns on reciprocity-eliciting material), de-confounded and instruction-removable, distinct from sycophancy and from hallucinating user facts. Our judge is gated by warmth-matched positive and confound-injected negative controls and corroborated by a deterministic non-LLM ruler; human agreement is 0.82 on extreme anchors but ~0 in the naturalistic middle, so all quantitative claims are anchored to pole-separated contrasts.