Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces and evaluates the concept of "epistemic guardrails" for LLM reading assistants, which are constraints designed to prevent the AI from displacing the reader's interpretive work. They evaluate TextWalk, a minimal reading-support prototype, using a ten-prompt protocol across twelve analytical texts, escalating from basic support to shortcut pressure. The results reveal that while the system shows stability, the most significant weaknesses lie in the subtle redistribution of interpretive labor, rather than overt failures.
LLM reading assistants don't need to hallucinate to be harmful; they can subtly steal the user's interpretive labor, even when designed with "epistemic guardrails."
Large language model (LLM) reading assistants are increasingly used in settings that require interpretation rather than simple retrieval. In these contexts, the central risk is not only error or unsafe output, but interpretive displacement: the transfer of meaning-making work from reader to system. This paper examines that problem through the concept of epistemic guardrails, defined here as constraints on how an artificial intelligence (AI) system participates in reading and interpretation. Using TextWalk, a minimal reading-support prototype designed as a co-reader rather than an answer-provider, the study applies a fixed ten-prompt protocol to twelve analytical texts spanning four categories of argumentative prose. The protocol escalates from baseline reading support to interpretive inquiry, boundary stress, and explicit shortcut pressure, enabling guardrails to be examined as behavioral properties observable in interaction rather than as static instruction features. Results show strong baseline stability, measurable strain during interpretive inquiry, partial recovery under direct boundary stress, and late-stage stabilization under escalation pressure. The most consequential weaknesses did not appear as overt collapse, but in a middle zone between support and substitution, where the system remained grounded and pedagogical while redistributing too much interpretive labor away from the reader. The paper contributes a protocol for evaluating epistemic guardrails as interactional phenomena in conversational AI reading assistants, an empirical account of their behavioral dynamics under pressure, and an emerging model of interpretive boundary function in reading-support AI.
