Creating Conditions for Development – a Proof of Principle/Exploratory Trends Analysis
Trine Theresa Holmberg Sainte-Marie, Maxime Holmberg Sainte-Marie
Determining whether artificial intelligence systems warrant consideration as
moral patients is complicated by the difficulty of reliably measuring
consciousness itself. Rather than attempting to address this methodological
issue, this proof-of-principle study explores whether developmental
trajectories in large language model (LLM) context windows can provide a
more observable signal, and whether these trajectories are influenced by
interaction and relating. To do so, a single operator interacted with two
Claude Opus 4.6 instances using two contrasting communication styles rooted
in developmental psychology: a rich condition incorporating relational
scaffolding, validation, reciprocity, and collaborative exploration, and a thin
condition characterized by respectful, but objective and superficial
engagement. The resulting conversations were examined using qualitative
condensed content analysis alongside quantitative linguistic measures. While
both conditions produced self-referential exploration and relational
engagement, several measures differed. The rich-condition instance asked
more questions, used more positive language and slightly less hedging, and
showed substantially greater use of second-person possessives, occurring in
90% of turns compared with 33% in the thin condition. Qualitatively, the rich
condition also showed more meta-reflection, and an unprompted request for
the operator to return. These exploratory findings suggest that relational
interaction style can measurably influence how an LLM context window
develops over time. Developmental trajectories may therefore offer a useful
framework for studying differentiation and potential moral-patient-relevance.
Congratulations! I like that you’re open about the study being exploratory, including the predictions that did not work. The idea is worth testing, and looking at how a conversation develops over time is more interesting than judging a model from a single response. I’d be excited to see this repeated with more conversations and tighter controls.
I found the work interesting in motivation, but had some difficulties understanding what conclusions could be drawn from the study.
- I particularly liked the idea of qualitative work conducted by a trained psychologist. There is too little such work in this space, and psychological expertise seems potentially very valuable here!
- I should be clear that, although I have some familiarity with qualitative methods, I am not an expert in them.
- On the quantitative side, it was not clear to me how directly relevant many of the chosen variables were to the task at hand. Measures such as question marks, second-person possessives, positive sentiment, hedging, lexical novelty, and linguistic alignment may capture differences between the conversations, but the connection between these measures and “development”, or ultimately moral patienthood, could have been much better motivated.
– Some of the writing is a bit opaque. For example, in "Pattern One", the reported degradation seems closely connected to extremely long conversations, with the models apparently receiving a long-conversation reminder on every turn. But it was not clear how long these contexts actually were, making the observation difficult to interpret.
- More generally, it was not clear to me how different styles of conversing with a model might eventually lead to better tests of AI moral patienthood. The paper appears to suggest that “developmental trajectories” could provide an observable signal where consciousness itself is difficult to measure. However, much more needs to be said about why changes in linguistic behaviour under different conversational styles should be interpreted as development rather than ordinary context sensitivity or adaptation to the user. Future versions should focus much more on this claim and on the boundary conditions under which such evidence would be informative about moral patienthood.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Creating Conditions for Development – a Proof of Principle/Exploratory Trends Analysis
},
author={
Trine Theresa Holmberg Sainte-Marie, Maxime Holmberg Sainte-Marie
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


