Skip to content

R0043/2026-03-28/Q001/SRC10/E01
Research R0043 — Sycophancy Vocabulary
Run 2026-03-28
Query Q001
Source SRC10
Evidence SRC10-E01
Type Analytical

Argument for fundamental vocabulary insufficiency and neologisms

URL: https://arxiv.org/html/2502.07586v1

Extract

Three foundational problems with existing vocabulary for AI:

  1. The Conceptualization Difference Problem: Machines form different equivalence classes than humans. A machine's notion of "sentiment" differs fundamentally from human sentiment, creating concepts in machine-space with no human equivalent (M-H) and vice versa (H-M).

  2. The Abstraction Problem: Existing vocabulary exists at extremes — either overly detailed (mechanistic neural network descriptions) or too broad (behavioral input-output characterizations). Neither captures the useful middle ground.

  3. The Confirmation Bias Problem: Researchers naturally project human-like properties onto AI systems, leading to misidentification of machine concepts as human ones.

Proposed solution: Create new words (neologisms) rather than force machine concepts into existing human terms. Effective neologisms should: - Reference complex concepts concisely - Enable compositionality within natural language - Combat anthropomorphic bias through explicit labeling of difference - Provide control interfaces through human communication

JUDGMENT: This paper provides the theoretical foundation for why the vocabulary gap identified in Q001 exists and why it is not merely an oversight but a structural problem. The term "sycophancy" itself is arguably an anthropomorphic projection (attributing human-like obsequious intent to statistical pattern matching). This suggests the vocabulary problem is even deeper than a simple mapping exercise.

Relevance to Hypotheses

Hypothesis Relationship Strength
H1 Partially contradicts Suggests existing domain vocabularies may be fundamentally inadequate, not just fragmented
H2 Contradicts Vocabulary exists but may be wrong, which is worse than absent
H3 Supports Provides theoretical explanation for WHY the human-side/system-side asymmetry exists: we lack vocabulary for machine behaviors that have no human analog

Context

This paper was published one month before the vocabulary-gap searches for Q001. Its arguments suggest that the "right" solution may not be to adopt AI safety's "sycophancy" across regulated industries, but to develop genuinely new terms that avoid anthropomorphic projection.