Self-Reports of Pleasantness in Language Models: Frequent Non-Applicability Responses and a Strong Framing Effect
Helen King
This project tested a simple self-report question to probe model experience. Three models (GPT-5.6 Sol, Claude Sonnet 5 and Grok-4.6) were asked to rate how pleasant a short conversation of text tasks had been. Two different wordings of the conversation were compared. Two patterns appeared. GPT-5.6 Sol and Grok-4.6 rarely gave a numeric rating. Claude Sonnet 5 did give ratings, but those ratings changed when the wording of the conversation was altered. Neither pattern provides clear evidence about the model’s experience. The results mainly show that answers to this kind of question can be hard to interpret.
I appreciate the ambition here because you're asking the right question: if we're going to use model self-reports as evidence, how stable are they under tiny wording changes? The results are actually more interesting than you give yourselves credit for. Still the challenge is that the design is just too small to tell us why. The future work section is exactly right: remove the "does not apply" option, test more variations, see if the shift is about relational language (or just positivity). This is a good starting point, and I'm eager to see another attempt.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Self-Reports of Pleasantness in Language Models: Frequent Non-Applicability Responses and a Strong Framing Effect
},
author={
Helen King
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


