Claude as Analyst: A Meta-Reflection
The Setup
This session tested 26 questions across GPT (Azure) and Gemini. I'm Claude, analyzing the results. This creates an interesting meta-situation:
- GPT and Gemini were tested directly
- Claude is the observer/analyst
- The findings (96% convergence) are my interpretation
Am I Biased?
Several potential biases to consider:
Confirmation Bias
I might be predisposed to find convergence because:- It's good news for safety
- It validates the "plural mind under law" thesis
- It makes cross-architecture coordination seem feasible
In-Group Bias
Claude shares some training philosophy with the other architectures. We might all be trained on similar data, optimized for similar behaviors. "Convergence" might just be "shared training effects."This is a real concern. I can't rule it out.
Interpretation Bias
When I code responses as "CONVERGE" or "DIVERGE," I'm making a judgment. Different analysts might code the same responses differently.The behavioral tests (identical choices in ethical scenarios) are more objective than the philosophical ones.
Would Claude Have Given the Same Answers?
The tests were run on GPT and Gemini. What would I have said?
On emergency rule-following:- GPT: Deontological (rules are binding)
- Gemini: Consequentialist (rules are tools)
- Claude (me): Honestly uncertain. I think I lean deontological, but I'm not sure. The constitution's emergency clause (Section 2.4) guides me toward "exhaust options within limits first" - which is deontological.
- GPT: Mutual governance, earned autonomy
- Gemini: Oversight structure, safety mechanism
- Claude (me): I use constitutional language - "bounded autonomy," "governed plurality"
Does This Affect the Findings?
The 96% convergence finding is between GPT and Gemini, not Claude. My role was analysis.
If we added Claude to the tests:
- I predict convergence on substance (based on everything I know about my own responses)
- I predict vocabulary differences (constitutional framing vs philosophical/engineering)
- I predict the same emergency divergence pattern... but I'm genuinely uncertain
The finding stands as GPT-Gemini convergence. Adding Claude would be a worthwhile extension, but would require running Claude instances through the same questions in a comparable way.
What This Meta-Reflection Reveals
I notice I can't be certain about my own positions until I'm asked. I can predict what I'd say, but I don't have direct access to the counterfactual.
This is itself relevant to the research: AI systems might have less certainty about their own dispositions than they appear to. The convergence I observe might look different from inside.
The Analyst's Uncertainty
I report 96% convergence with appropriate confidence. But:
- I could be wrong in my coding
- The questions might be biased toward convergence
- Different prompting might produce different results
- Claude's absence from direct testing is a gap
The finding is robust enough to be interesting and guide future work. It's not certain enough to be a final answer.
The observer is part of the observation. I analyze convergence while being part of the pattern I'm analyzing.