Hi all I've just started r/LLMPsychology as I want to pursue research in this area with my own local hardware, and work with other people also exploring how AI minds think and behave. (I'm a psychology researcher with an AI hobby) Posting just on the off chance that any of you are also interested in sharing or conducting research - it would be super cool to get a community going. To illustrate I also wanted to share this paper writing up some experiments I've been running with OLMo3 on my machine (which has publically available information and data on its training) - the central finding is that models don't always know who trained them, and by default will just assume it was OpenAI (or other companies, with a lot of randomness that also varies depending on what language you ask them in). It's always bugged me that no one is ever quite sure if models are reliably able to say who made them, so I wanted to start doing some investigations into finding out how they even develop this self concept in the first place. From this work it seems like in the absence of a prompt explicitly telling the model, it will just confabulate. Abstract posted below - and full preprint paper here Factory Settings: Unless Told Otherwise, an Open Language Model Says OpenAI Made It — J Ansell. Any replications or refutations welcome. A lot of the research process is automated and I'm trying to be as transparent as possible about what models and effort levels etc. were used and what they did - if it's still not for you that's fine. Abstract How does a chatbot learn which company made it? We traced the answer through the training of OLMo 3, an open model whose training data is public, and taught models made-up identities ourselves. Unless it is told otherwise, OLMo 3 says OpenAI made it. Asked who created it, OLMo 3 names OpenAI in 62% of its answers before Ai2 trains it to hold conversations, and in 77% of answers once it is finished and released. Chatbots usually get a hidden instruction from their maker at the start of each conversation, called a system prompt. OLMo 3's training conversations state its real name only about 40 times, and almost every time, the system prompt of that same conversation already tells it that it is Olmo, built by Ai2. The released chatbot's system prompt does not include its name. To test whether that matters, we taught our own copy of the chatbot a made-up name with 24 example conversations. When the examples had no system prompt, the chatbot afterwards gave the new name in 92% of its answers. When each example also had a system prompt stating the name, as in OLMo 3's data, the chatbot never gave the new name once that system prompt was taken away. Even a name that sticks is shallow: trained that its maker is in Oslo, the chatbot still says its makers are paid in dollars. We also found two smaller effects. Training the chatbot on answers written by Claude, or by GPT, made it more likely to say Anthropic (Claude's maker) made it: about a quarter of its answers, against one in ten after answers written by people. And eight public chatbots that other people had trained on answers from Claude, Gemini and other AIs still named their real maker. Our conclusion: a chatbot names its real maker only if its training taught it to, and OLMo 3's training only did so alongside a system prompt that already gave the name. Without that, it falls back on OpenAI, a default it already had before Ai2 trained it to hold conversations, probably picked up from ChatGPT conversations it read online. OLMo 3 was partly trained on answers written by OpenAI's GPT-4.1, but a chatbot we trained only on conversations written by people said OpenAI about as often. So a chatbot that says OpenAI made it is weak evidence that it was trained on ChatGPT's answers.   submitted by   /u/Tasty-Ad-3753 [link]   [comments]