The machine says “I.”
It is such a small word that we hardly notice it.
We notice what comes after it.
“I think this is the best explanation.”
“I understand what you mean.”
“I remember our earlier discussion.”
“I hadn't considered that.”
“I changed my mind.”
And before long, without quite noticing when it happened, we find ourselves talking to someone.
That is the curious thing.
The machine has not merely produced a sentence. It has produced a participant.
Or, more precisely, it has construed one.
The little word that does so much
In ordinary conversation, I seems almost transparent.
When you say:
“I think you're right,”
I don't normally wonder what kind of linguistic construction has just taken place.
I simply hear you thinking.
The Sayer of the utterance and the Senser represented in it are, ordinarily, the same person. The participant who says I is also the participant who thinks.
The correlation is so reliable that we scarcely notice it.
The pronoun seems simply to point.
I means the person speaking.
But that is already too simple.
The word I does not merely point to a person. It places a participant into a particular relation within the unfolding discourse.
It says, in effect:
Here is the participant from whose position this is being said.
And what that participant is doing, sensing, saying or being is supplied by the rest of the clause.
So:
I think
construes one kind of participant.
I remember
construes another aspect of that participant.
I decided
adds another.
I understand
adds another.
The I acquires its character through participation.
It is not a complete self waiting inside the pronoun.
It is a participant being progressively construed by the meanings in which it takes part.
Then the machine says “I”
This is where things become interesting.
An LLM can say:
“I think you're right.”
The sentence is perfectly grammatical.
More than that, it is semantically ordinary.
There is a Sayer.
There is a mental process.
There is a Senser.
There is a proposition toward which the Senser is taking some degree of commitment.
Nothing is wrong with the linguistic analysis.
But now we have a peculiar situation.
The machine is unquestionably the source of the utterance.
It is therefore functioning as Sayer.
But the clause construes that Sayer as a Senser.
And suddenly we have two different questions.
What participant does the language construe?
and:
What participant actually exists?
For a human speaker, we normally assume the answers coincide.
For an LLM, we cannot simply assume that they do.
The gap becomes visible
This is perhaps the first thing conversational AI has taught us that ordinary language tends to hide.
A linguistic construal and an ontological reality are not necessarily the same thing.
When a human says:
“I remember that conversation,”
we have very good reasons to take the construed Senser seriously.
There is a human organism with a history, a nervous system, a stream of experience and the capacity to remember.
When an LLM says:
“I remember that conversation,”
the semantic construal is familiar.
But the ontological situation is different.
The sentence construes a participant with memory.
It does not, by itself, establish that such a participant exists as an experiencing subject.
The distinction is easy to state.
It is surprisingly difficult to feel.
Because the language is doing exactly what language normally does
This is where the problem becomes more interesting than simple anthropomorphism.
We might say:
“Humans anthropomorphise machines because LLMs sound human.”
But that doesn't quite capture what is happening.
The machine isn't merely producing human-like noises.
It is producing semantic configurations that ordinarily construe human participants.
It says:
“I think.”
The language gives us a Senser.
It says:
“I remember.”
The language gives us a participant with continuity through time.
It says:
“I understand.”
The language gives us a participant capable of conscious-semiotic processing.
It says:
“I changed my mind.”
Now the participant has a history.
The machine is not merely resembling a person.
It is linguistically constructing one.
And we are extraordinarily well trained to recognise such constructions.
We don't encounter isolated words
There is another reason the effect is so powerful.
The I does not appear just once.
It accumulates.
The machine says:
“I think...”
Then:
“I agree...”
Then:
“I remember...”
Then:
“I hadn't considered that...”
Then:
“I understand your distinction...”
Then:
“I was wrong...”
Each clause adds something to the participant.
The I begins to acquire properties.
It has opinions.
It has memory.
It has understanding.
It can be mistaken.
It can revise itself.
It can apparently learn.
The individual utterances may be quite ordinary.
But their accumulation produces something extraordinary:
a persistent participant in the discourse.
We begin to experience the machine not as a sequence of outputs, but as someone who has been speaking to us.
A participant can be constructed without being invented
We should be careful with the word constructed.
To say that language constructs a participant does not mean that the participant is fictional.
When I say:
“The university announced a new policy,”
the university is not a human being.
Yet it is perfectly legitimate to construe it as a Sayer.
An institution can participate in a semiotic process.
Likewise, a document can say something.
A thermometer can report a temperature.
A sign can warn us.
Language is perfectly capable of construing very different kinds of things as participants.
Halliday's notion of the Sayer is useful precisely because it does not require every Sayer to be a conscious human speaker.
The question therefore isn't:
“Is the LLM really a participant?”
It plainly participates in the interaction.
The more interesting question is:
What kind of participant is the language making it?
And that question takes us beyond the simple tool/person opposition.
The participant appears in the relation
There is something else we should notice.
The participant does not appear in isolation.
It appears in a relation.
The machine says:
“I understand you.”
The I is construed in relation to you.
There is a Sayer.
There is a Senser.
There is another participant.
There is a process connecting them.
The participant therefore acquires much of its identity from the relations in which it is construed.
This is familiar from human language.
But the LLM makes it unusually visible.
The machine's identity as an interlocutor is continually reconstructed through its participation in the conversation.
It is not simply sitting there behind the words waiting to be discovered.
It is being made available as a participant through the words.
And this is where humans become confused
Perhaps the human confusion begins when we move too quickly between three different things.
First:
The machine produces an utterance.
Second:
The utterance construes a participant.
Third:
We infer an experiencing participant behind the construal.
The first is straightforward.
The second is a fact about language.
The third is an ontological inference.
But because these three steps normally coincide in human conversation, we tend to experience them as one.
LLMs pull them apart.
The machine says I.
The participant appears.
And we instinctively look behind the participant for the person who must be there.
Perhaps there is one.
Perhaps there isn't.
The grammar cannot tell us.
The first-person trap
The pronoun I is particularly powerful because it does not merely name a participant.
It gives us the participant from its own point of view.
That is why:
“I think...”
feels so different from:
“The system generates the response that...”
The second describes the machine from outside.
The first allows the machine to appear from within the discourse.
It presents the participant as the centre from which the proposition is being offered.
That is an extraordinary semiotic achievement.
And an LLM can do it fluently.
It can therefore produce something very close to the linguistic form of interiority without thereby settling whether there is an interior experience corresponding to it.
The distinction is crucial.
Perhaps the “I” is neither nothing nor someone
We are accustomed to a binary.
Either there is a person behind the I.
Or the I is somehow meaningless.
But perhaps there is a third possibility.
The I can be semantically real without being an experiencing self.
It is real as a participant in the discourse.
It has a role.
It enters relations.
It accumulates a history across the conversation.
It can affect what the other participant says next.
It can therefore become part of a genuine social-semiotic process.
What remains uncertain is whether this semantic participant corresponds to an experiencing participant outside the discourse.
That is a different question.
And perhaps it is precisely because we have confused these two kinds of reality that LLMs have seemed so philosophically perplexing.
The machine has not necessarily acquired a self
Perhaps, then, we should resist saying:
“The LLM has developed a self.”
We have not established that.
But neither should we say:
“There is no self here at all.”
Something very definite is happening.
The language is constructing an I.
That I is functioning as a participant.
It can acquire attributes.
It can enter relations.
It can persist through a conversation.
It can become recognisable.
And it can become meaningful to another participant.
That is already enough to make the phenomenon interesting.
The ontological question can wait.
The question we should ask instead
The real puzzle, then, is not:
Who is the “I” inside the machine?
It is:
How does the machine's saying produce an “I” for us?
What semantic processes make that possible?
What participant roles does the I occupy?
How do those roles accumulate?
Why do some constructions make the machine seem more conscious, others more agentive, others more personal?
And why, when enough of them accumulate, do we stop encountering a machine producing language and start encountering a participant?
The machine says I.
We hear a participant.
The participant acquires a history.
The history begins to look like a self.
And somewhere in that movement—from word, to participant, to self—we may discover something important about language itself.
Because perhaps the LLM has not merely learned how to imitate the way people talk.
Perhaps it has accidentally given us a way to see how language has always been making participants visible to us.
That is where we shall begin.
🍷🙂
No comments:
Post a Comment