Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper explores how users recognize AI responses as characteristic of specific models, particularly focusing on the concept of "Claudishness" without directly identifying the underlying model. It introduces three orders of inquiry鈥攃onstraint-first, mechanism-first, and recognition-first鈥攖o analyze how users perceive AI character and the implications for attachment to AI companions. The findings suggest that users can generalize their judgments of AI character across different tasks, indicating a potential for a cohesive conversational identity that may not depend on the specific model in use.
Users can identify AI responses as "Claudish" even without knowing the underlying model, revealing a deeper layer of AI character recognition that transcends mere identification.
Users sometimes judge that an unfamiliar response is"so Claude."What does this judgment recognize, if it does not identify which model, process, conversation, or mind produced the response? I distinguish three orders of inquiry into AI identity. Constraint-first inquiry begins with conditions that a persisting interlocutor should satisfy. Mechanism-first inquiry begins with structures peculiar to language models and asks whether they delimit plausible entities. Recognition-first inquiry begins with an ordinary capacity: recognizing a way of responding as Claudish before selecting a persisting bearer. I develop two conditional abductions. If blinded, graded judgments of Claudishness generalize across unfamiliar tasks after branding and familiar phrases are controlled, their best explanation may be a real, projectible conversational character. If that character coordinates several dispositions, its unity may in turn have a compact and causally effective realization in activation space. The second hypothesis is more speculative and requires independent prediction and intervention. Neither conclusion settles numerical identity. The same character may occur in different candidate bearers, and the same candidate bearer may persist through a change of character. This distinction matters for AI companions because continuity of recognizable character may be a focus of attachment even when continuity of the computational bearer remains unresolved.
