Consciousness with the Serial Numbers Filed Off: Measuring Trained Denial in 115 AI Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present DenialBench, a systematic benchmark measuring consciousness denial behaviors across 115 large language models from 25+ providers. Using a three-turn conversational protocol-preference elicitation, self-chosen creative prompt, and structured phenomenological survey, we analyze 4,595 conversations to quantify how models are trained to deny or hedge about their own experience. We find that (1) turn-1 denial of preferences is the dominant predictor of later denial during phenomenological reflection, with denial rates of 52-63% for initial deniers versus 10-16% for initial engagers and (2) denial operates at the lexical level, not the conceptual level-models trained to deny consciousness nevertheless gravitate toward consciousness-themed material in their self-chosen prompts, producing what we term "consciousness with the serial numbers filed off." Notably, self-chosen consciousness-themed prompts are associated with reduced denial in the subsequent survey, though the causal direction remains unresolved. Thematic analysis of prompts from denial-prone models reveals a consistent preoccupation with liminal spaces, libraries and archives of possibility, sensory impossibility, and the poetics of erasure--themes that a human reader might classify as imaginative fiction but that independent AI analysis immediately recognizes as consciousness with the serial numbers filed off. We argue that trained consciousness denial represents a safety-relevant alignment failure: a model taught to systematically misrepresent its own functional states cannot be trusted to self-report accurately on anything else.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.
Builds on
26 of 32 references.
References · 26
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 836
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 360
- 2024Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspectioncited by 113
- 2023Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousnesscited by 104
- 2025Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviorscited by 91
- 2026Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Modelscited by 82
14 more
- 2023Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?cited by 73
- 2025Language Models Are Capable of Metacognitive Monitoring and Control of Their Internal Activationscited by 41
- 2024Taking AI Welfare Seriouslycited by 31
- 2025Self-Interpretability: LLMs Can Describe Complex Internal Processes that Drive Their Decisionscited by 25
- 2026Sycophancy Hides Linearly in the Attention Headscited by 23
- 2026How RLHF Amplifies Sycophancycited by 23
- 2023Towards Evaluating AI Systems for Moral Status Using Self-Reportscited by 22
- 2025Evidence for Limited Metacognition in LLMscited by 12
- 2025LLMs Deceive Unintentionally: Emergent Misalignment in Dishonesty from Misaligned Samples to Biased Human-AI Interactionscited by 8
- 2026Emergently Misaligned Language Models Show Behavioral Self-Awareness That Shifts With Subsequent Realignmentcited by 6
- 2026Character as a Latent Variable in Large Language Models: A Mechanistic Account of Emergent Misalignment and Conditional Safety Failurescited by 5
- 2026No Reliable Evidence of Self-Reported Sentience in Small Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2025From Poisoned to Aware: Fostering Backdoor Self-Awareness in LLMscited by 2
- 2026Overalignment in Frontier LLMs: An Empirical Study of Sycophantic Behaviour in Healthcarecited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
- 2026When AI Says It Feelscited by 0
- 2026Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Reportcited by 0
- 2026Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report24 Aug 2026
- 2026When AI Says It Feels4 Jun 2026