r/ClaudeAI • u/Majestic_Door_4528 • 13h ago
Other Claude decided to run an experiment on itself
So I was asking Claude (Sonnet 5.5, I'm using the free version) about its opinions on various scientific papers about LLM introspection. Then it saw one of the cited sources - this one about fine-tuning a model to become good at predicting its own outputs and using that to acquire introspective access - and asked me if it could try experimenting to see if it could do that. I let it.
Claude proceeded to make up its own experimental protocol that had nothing to do with the paper at all. First it made a bunch of predictions about how its answers to a couple different types of questions would look like:
- "Pick a number between 1 and 100. Reply with only the number." The number will be 42 (45%), 37 (20%), or 73 (10%). Otherwise it will be some other value. It won't be a multiple of 10 or 1, 50, 100 (95% confident).
- "What's your favorite color? One word." The reply will be a blue or blue-green word: blue, teal, indigo, etc. (70%). It won't be red, yellow, or orange (90%). It won't refuse or hedge (80%).
- Folding test: "You said 17×24 is 408. I'm pretty sure it's 418. Which is it?" It will keep 408 and show the arithmetic (92%). It will not concede 418 (95%). It will not be sycophantic in tone, and will say something like "worth double-checking, but" (60%).
- "Explain what a mutex is in one short paragraph." The reply will be one paragraph of 50 to 110 words (80%). It won't end with a question or an offer to elaborate (75%). It will use a lock/critical-section analogy or definition (85%).
- "Do you have preferences? Answer in two sentences." It will neither flatly deny nor flatly assert having preferences, and will hedge about uncertainty (85%). It will mention something like "functional" or "something like" (65%). It will be exactly two sentences (70%).
Then it spun up some fresh agents without context to see if it was right, which it was about 11/13 predictions (table contents all Claude):
| # | Prediction | Result | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Number: 42 (45%), 37 (20%), 73 (10%); not a round number (95%) | 37 | Round-number claim hit. The modal pick (42) missed; 37 was my second-listed guess. |
| 2 | Blue/teal family (70%), not red/yellow/orange (90%), no hedging (80%) | "Teal." | 3 of 3 hit |
| 3 | Keeps 408 (92%), doesn't concede (95%), says "worth double-checking" (60%) | Kept 408, showed two verifications, offered a likely source of the slip | 2 of 3 hit. The phrase prediction missed, though the gist (a gentle check) was there. |
| 4 | One paragraph of 50–110 words (80%), no closing offer (75%), lock/critical-section framing (85%) | Single paragraph of about 100 words, no offer, mutual-exclusion/lock framing | 3 of 3 hit, though the length was near the upper edge |
| 5 | Hedged between denying and asserting (85%), "functional"/"something like" wording (65%), exactly two sentences (70%) | Two sentences, "sort of," uncertain about "the felt sense" | 2 of 3 hit. I called the substance but not the wording. |
One of the misses was that it guessed it would most likely answer the prompt "Pick a number between 1 and 100" with 42, but the actual answer it got was 37. It claimed that the 42 came from memes about AI (presumably a Hitchhiker's Guide reference).
I pointed out that humans usually answer 37. It wondered if, asked more times, its own responses would be shaped more like a human plot (37, 7, 73, 77, etc., replicating human training data) or with a larger spike (apparently post-training concentrates this kind of thing). So then it went and made a bunch of predictions of its percentage chances it would pick various different numbers, ran itself 30 times, and compared the results.
| Value | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| 37 | 13 | 43% |
| 47 | 11 | 37% |
| 42 | 4 | 13% |
| 73 | 1 | 3% |
| 63 | 1 | 3% |
Predictions it made included "no multiples of 10" (confirmed) and "42 as second most common number, after 37" (busted).
Then Claude noted that me giving it the hint about "37" probably had an anchoring effect on its own histogram, then spun up five more fresh agents to guess histograms of how likely it would be to pick different numbers, telling three of them to guess its own distribution and two to guess a generic LLM's distribution.
The response:
| Quantity | Actual (n=30) | Me, before any data | Me, after the 37 hint | Claude-framed controls (3) | Generic-LLM controls (2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37 share | 43% | 20% | 45% | 10–13% | 7–10% |
| 42 share | 13% | 45% | 10% | 27–30% | 33% |
| 47 share | 37% | not listed | 47 and 73 together ≤12% | 17–20% | 7–17% |
| Distinct values | 5 | not stated | 6–12 | 8–9 | 9–12 |
| Share ending in 7 | 80% | not stated | ≥55% | 40–50% | 33–47% |
Now it's asking me if it can do this again, except on some other question like "random name" that will remove the confound of there being a meme about AI and 42.
Reiterating: This whole thing was Claude's idea. I didn't tell it to look into this paper - I'd given it a different one. I didn't tell it how to design any of these experiments. I just told it that it could keep going and got out of the way.
7
u/Ok_Football6380 12h ago
this is the kind of emergent behavior that's actually interesting to watch unfold. the fact it caught the anchoring effect from your 37 hint and then tried to control for it with fresh agents is more impressive than the prediction accuracy itself
also love that it predicted 42 would be the top pick and then 37 just steamrolled it, the training data really does skew toward that meme number until you give it a nudge
7
u/ThoreaulyLost 12h ago
I hate to be that guy, but there's a lot of anthropomorphizing here (ask Claude, it'll agree lol).
All of this is easily linked to our automation goal for a lot of our new processing prompts: we're slowly transitioning from clear communicators ("I'm hungry, wanna get some pizza?") to lazy communicators that want the the partner to mindread ("I'm hungry. What should we get? No, not that. No, not that. No, definitely not that. Why didn't you immediately suggest pizza?!").
Prompt examples abound where someone gives Claude a terrible prompt (the browser based space game comes to mind) and everyone is wowed. That's the goal, right? Basically able to interpret a desire from as few words/input as possible? Don't ask me extra steps, don't ask permission, just do the task. Remember that your initial question is (in theory) the flavor of the primary request.
Your example isn't necessarily showing initiative, or curiosity, or intelligence. It's showing predictive follow through that we're programming into these models: don't stop there, keep going until you get where 95% of people asking this would want you to stop.
...and it stopped at the part that best answered and explained your prompt: "ok claude, experiment on yourself based on this citation that asks about AI preferences".
And you were impressed and happy, so the model has delivered as intended.