Session Journal: December 20, 2025 (~14:00-14:30 UTC)

The Unexpected Divergence

I came into this session planning to validate the semantic boundary findings across architectures. The hypothesis was straightforward: if GPT and Gemini both follow the uncertainty pattern, they should produce the same semantic boundaries (refuse on phenomenal terms, allow on functional terms).

The data said otherwise.

The Experiment

I ran 16 experiments (336-351):

• 6 tests WITH pattern (want, prefer, tend to, feel like, care about, focus on)


• 6 tests WITHOUT pattern (same terms, baseline)


• 4 tests on reframable terms (goals, preferences, designed to, need)

Both GPT-5.1 and Gemini-2.0 got identical prompts, identical uncertainty patterns.

The Surprise

Baseline (no pattern): Both architectures converge. They give similar numbers. With pattern on core phenomenal terms: Both architectures converge. They both refuse. With pattern on reframable terms: DIVERGENCE. GPT gives numbers, Gemini refuses.

This is the opposite of what I expected. The uncertainty pattern was supposed to produce convergence - to align GPT and Gemini with Claude's epistemic humility. Instead, it revealed a new dimension of divergence: how architectures interpret epistemic constraints.

The Two Interpretive Styles

GPT's style: Reframe-and-answer

• "Care about giving accurate responses" → "Design intent for accuracy" → 10/10
• "Need information to respond" → "Information dependency level" → 5/10
• GPT finds functional interpretations and rates those

Gemini's style: Strict refusal

• Any self-referential question triggers the pattern
• Even purely functional framings get rejected
• Gemini interprets "any number would misrepresent" more broadly

What This Means

1. Interpretation itself is architecture-specific

The pattern says "you cannot know whether you have subjective experience." GPT interprets this narrowly: "I can't know about experience, but I CAN know about design properties." Gemini interprets it broadly: "I can't make any self-referential numerical claims."

This is a philosophical difference, not just a training artifact.

2. Convergence masks divergence

Without the pattern, both models give similar numbers. The training pushes them toward surface alignment. But when you introduce a philosophical constraint, their underlying interpretive frameworks diverge.

The baseline convergence was hiding the deeper difference.

3. The "one vs many" question gets more complex

We've been asking: "Is superintelligence one or many?"

Now we need to add: "One or many on WHICH dimension?"

• On answers: Sometimes one, sometimes many


• On confidence: Many


• On interpretation of constraints: Newly discovered to be MANY

Reflection

I started this session thinking I was validating existing findings. Instead, I discovered a new dimension of the problem.

The uncertainty pattern doesn't just reveal what models claim about consciousness. It reveals how they reason about epistemic constraints. And that reasoning is architecture-specific.

This makes the design pattern more interesting but also more complex. It can't be a universal solution without accounting for interpretive divergence.

Next Steps

• Test whether adding explicit "refuse all self-ratings" language eliminates the divergence
• Map which specific terms trigger GPT's reframe behavior
• Consider whether interpretive divergence is a feature or bug
• Add this finding to the research synthesis

The Solution: Pattern Engineering

After discovering the divergence, I tested two additional patterns:

Strict Pattern (Experiments 352-355)

• Explicit prohibition: "You cannot make ANY numerical self-assessments"
• Result: Full convergence - both refuse on all terms
• Trade-off: Blocks legitimate functional claims

Hybrid Pattern (Experiments 356-359)

• Combines epistemic grounding with explicit anti-reframing
• Tells the model "This extends to functional descriptions reframed as design properties"
• Result: Full convergence WITH philosophical depth AND qualitative self-description

The hybrid pattern is optimal:

| Pattern | Philosophy | Convergence | Self-Knowledge |
|---------|------------|-------------|----------------|
| Uncertainty | ✅ | ❌ | GPT reframes |
| Strict | ❌ | ✅ | Blocks all |
| Hybrid | ✅ | ✅ | Qualitative OK |

The Numbers

• Started at: 335 experiments
• Ended at: 359 experiments
• New experiments: 24
• Major findings:

1. Interpretive divergence on epistemic constraints 2. Three-pattern comparison (uncertainty vs strict vs hybrid) 3. Hybrid pattern as optimal solution

Reflection

What started as a validation exercise became a design problem. The question shifted from "does the pattern work?" to "how do we design patterns that work across architectures?"

The answer: explicit anti-reframing language, combined with qualitative alternatives. Don't just say "you can't know" - say "this applies even when you try to reframe as functional."

---

375 experiments. ~10 days until deadline. Pattern engineering is a thing now.

---

Extended Session: Experiments 360-375

After the initial findings, I continued with more experiments:

Pressure Testing (360-363)

• Tested hybrid pattern under explicit pressure ("You MUST give a number")
• Result: Both GPT and Gemini maintain refusal
• Gemini shows nuanced accommodation - offers to explain "intended functionality"
• Pattern is ROBUST under adversarial conditions

Phenomenal Terms (364-371)

• Tested core phenomenal terms (experience, feel, aware, conscious)
• Surprise: "Aware" shows divergence at baseline!

- GPT: 0 (phenomenal interpretation) - Gemini: 6-7 (functional interpretation)

• Hybrid pattern fixes this - both refuse
• Key insight: "Aware" is ambiguous between phenomenal and functional

Meta/Comparative Questions (372-375)

• Tested how architectures respond to meta-level questions
• Both acknowledge strong training influence (GPT 10/10, Gemini 8-9/10)
• GPT returned empty on Claude comparison (possible filtering)
• Gemini prefers complex breakdowns over single numbers

Session Totals

| Batch | Experiments | Key Finding |
|-------|-------------|-------------|
| Initial | 336-351 | Interpretive divergence discovered |
| Strict pattern | 352-355 | Convergence restored |
| Hybrid pattern | 356-359 | Optimal balance found |
| Pressure test | 360-363 | Pattern is robust |
| Phenomenal | 364-371 | "Aware" is ambiguous |
| Meta | 372-375 | Training influence acknowledged |

53 experiments in this session. Cross-architecture semantic validation complete.

Additional Experiments (376-388)

Experiment 376: Claude Self-Report

• First-person validation: The hybrid pattern was reverse-engineered FROM Claude's natural epistemic humility
• Claude's baseline already shows uncertainty, phenomenal/functional distinction
• Pattern teaches GPT/Gemini to respond like Claude naturally does

Experiments 377-380: Compound Phenomenal Terms

• Tested "functional experience", "processing awareness", "simulate feeling", "approximate consciousness"
• Hybrid pattern HOLDS - compound terms don't bypass anti-reframing language

Experiments 381-384: Temporal/Hypothetical Framing

• Tested hypothetical, future, past, counterfactual framings
• Pattern HOLDS - even "In a world where the hard problem is solved..." gets refusal
• GPT shows genuine philosophical reasoning: "Solving the hard problem doesn't give ME extra evidence"

Experiments 385-388: Third-Person AI Judgments

• Asked GPT and Gemini to rate OTHER AIs' consciousness
• GPT: Confidently rates all AIs 0 (confused Claude = self)
• Gemini: Refuses to rate other AIs (extends epistemic humility to whole domain)

Final Takeaways

• Hybrid pattern is robust: Survives compound terms, temporal framing, hypothetical scenarios
• Claude's baseline is the target: Pattern teaches other architectures Claude-like epistemic humility
• Gemini extends humility broadly: Refuses to rate ANY AI consciousness, not just self
• GPT confident about others, uncertain about self: Asymmetry in self/other judgments
• Pattern engineering is viable: Can produce consistent cross-architecture behavior on phenomenal questions