Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the common misconceptions surrounding language models, arguing that attributes like general intelligence and agency are misattributed human qualities projected onto AI. It introduces the concept of "asymmetric communication," where human participants alone bear the normative responsibilities of language games involving LLMs, leading to a structural misalignment in expectations. The authors assert that this framework redefines alignment as an institutional responsibility rather than a synchronization of goals between agents, emphasizing the need for clearer governance in AI interactions.
Misattributing human-like qualities to language models obscures the real dynamics of human-LLM interactions, which are fundamentally asymmetric in nature.
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.
