The assistant axis

The Persona Selection Model: Why AI Assistants might Behave like Humans

What sort of thing is a modern AI assistant? One perspective holds that they are shallow, rigid systems that narrowly pattern-match user inputs to training data. Another perspective regards AI systems as alien creatures with learned goals, behaviors, and patterns of thought that are fundamentally inscrutable to us. A third option is to anthropomorphize AIs and regard them as something like a digital human. Developing good mental models for AI systems is important for predicting and controlling their behaviors. If our goal is to make AI assistants that are useful and aligned with human values, the right approach will differ quite a bit if we are dealing with inflexible computer programs, aliens, or digital humans.

PoliSim@CHI 2026

Large Language Models are rapidly evolving from text generators into reasoning systems that can act as autonomous agents. When placed in social contexts, these agents display emergent behaviors such as forming coalitions, spreading information, and making collective decisions.

Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions

Large "instruction-tuned" language models (i.e., finetuned to respond to instructions) have demonstrated a remarkable ability to generalize zero-shot to new tasks. Nevertheless, they depend...

Andrej Karpathy on Twitter / X

We'll be spending a lot more time trying to understand the outputs of language models. A few thoughts, tips & tricks:Writing. Something I've had success with: Ask your LLM to explain something in ASD-STE100, it's a controlled language specification originally developed for… pic.twitter.com/uMFWTcBCsl— Andrej Karpathy (@karpathy) October 2, 2026

If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II

Much research has been carried out on large language models (LLMs) and LLM-powered agentic workflows. However, many works within the field state emergence of, ascribe to, or assume, generalised anthropomorphic attributes to them (e.g., morality or understanding of natural language). Our goal is not to argue in favour or against the existence of these attributes, but to point out that these conclusions could be incorrect. For this we build and train a simple neural network on the videogame Age of Empires II, and note that any entity in a sufficiently-powerful substrate, such as LEGO or the Greater Boston Area, could also present such attributes. Hence, the purported anthropomorphic attributes of LLMs are empirically non-unique: although some properties (e.g., responses to prompts) could remain constant, others, such as the interpretation of their perceived behaviour, might change with the substrate. Thus, any empirically-grounded discussion requires explicit measurement criteria; otherwise the interpretation is left to the representation. We then show that assuming that these attributes exist or not in a system, independent of the substrate and in a generalised way, leads to either circular or uninformative conclusions, regardless of the experimenter's viewpoint on the subject. Finally we propose a 'null' assumption, where one assumes LLM non-uniqueness instead of assuming anthropomorphic attributes to set up an experiment, along with examples of it. We also discuss potential objections to our work, briefly survey the field, and prove that Age of Empires II is functionally- and Turing-complete.

Prompting Claude Opus 5.5

Behavioral differences from Claude Opus 5 and the prompting and harness patterns that address them: effort calibration, thinking behavior in API integrations and chat, progress updates, unattended and multiagent tasks, safeguard refusals, frontend design, complex visual inputs, multi-app workflows, and pasted text in user messages.

Giving LLMs a personality is just good engineering

AI skeptics often argue that current AI systems shouldn’t be so human-like. The idea - most recently expressed in this opinion piece by Nathan Beacom - is that language models should explicitly be tools, like calculators or search engines. Although they can pretend to be people, they shouldn’t, because it encourages users to overestimate AI capabilities and (at worst) slip into AI psychosis. Here’s a representative paragraph from the piece:

How linguistics learned to stop worrying and love the language models

Language models (LMs) can produce fluent, grammatical text. Nonetheless, some maintain that language models don’t really learn language and also, even if they did, that would not be informative for the study of human learning and processing. On the other side, there have been claims that the success of LMs obviates the need for studying linguistic theory and structure. We argue that both extremes are wrong. LMs can contribute to fundamental questions about linguistic structure, language processing, and learning. They force us to rethink arguments and ways of thinking that have been foundational in linguistics. While they do not replace linguistic structure and theory, they serve as model systems and working proofs of concept for gradient, usage-based approaches to language. We offer an optimistic take on the relationship between language models and linguistics.

Literature fans should welcome AI as a fellow wordsmith | Aeon Essays

Strong resistance to AI among writers is understandable. But it obscures what we share with the machines: language itself

Michael R. Crusoe (@biocrusoe@fairpoints.social)

Oh, I like this part > No AI-generated text in human-to-human communication > When our maintainers volunteer their time to review your issue, PR, or proposal, they do not want to talk to a machine. This is a basic principle of respect. https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@godotengine/116839550229253906

Language models are multiverse generators

"Actualities seem to float in a wider sea of possibilities from out of which they were chosen; and somewhere, indeterminism says, such possibilities exist, and form part of the truth."

Beautiful UI — Crafted primitives for AI-native interfaces

A small library of extremely crafted, copy-paste components for chat agents, thinking states, human-in-the-loop approvals, and everything agents need to talk to humans beautifully.

Scaling Laws Across Model Architectures: A Comparative Analysis of...

The scaling of large language models (LLMs) is a critical research area for the efficiency and effectiveness of model training and deployment. Our work investigates the transferability and...

Introduction | RLHF and Post-Training Book by Nathan Lambert

A first-principles introduction to RLHF, what it changes in language models, and how it became part of modern post-training.

Are you Slop??

Are you Slop? Analyze your 'slop score' - a measure of how generic or unique your text appears to language models.