What kind of entity are we actually talking to when using an LLM?
When you converse with an LLM, are you addressing the model itself, the hardware running it, or something else? Understanding what the interlocutor really is matters for questions about identity, responsibility, and continuity.
Chalmers' What We Talk To When We Talk To Language Models asks what kind of entity users are actually addressing when they converse with an LLM, and works through four candidate individuation schemes. The model itself fails as the interlocutor because a single model serves many simultaneous users carrying on categorically different conversations — whatever users address, it is not the pretrained weights as such. The hardware instance fails because modern serving infrastructure is distributed and multi-tenanted; any given conversation spans many hardware instances, and any given instance hosts many conversations. Two candidates remain.
The virtual model instance is the computational pattern that persists across the back-end implementation — the thing whose identity is given by the conversational context being routed across successive hardware substrates. In the single-model case, this is Chalmers' preferred unit: the interlocutor is the virtual instance that the infrastructure reconstitutes each time the user returns. The thread generalizes this to multi-model cases, where the same conversation may be continued by different models (e.g., after a version upgrade) and the unit of continuity is the sequence of successor-related exchanges. Chalmers lands on virtual instance for within-model cases and thread for cross-model cases.
The taxonomy is analytically useful even if one rejects the ontological commitments Chalmers builds on top of it. Separating model, hardware, virtual instance, and thread makes it possible to ask which level of individuation the folk-psychological and moral-status vocabulary is supposed to attach to. Different answers commit one to different downstream claims about identity, welfare, and continuity. The framework reframes the "what is the LLM interlocutor?" question as a choice between four candidates rather than a single ambiguity, and that reframing is portable to analyses that otherwise disagree with Chalmers' specific answer.
Inquiring lines that use this note as a source 1
This note is a source for these synthesized inquiries. Follow a line forward into its question, or open it to trace back to all of its sources.
Related concepts in this collection 2
This note in its neighbourhood — explore the map, then jump to a related concept in the list below.
Click a node to walk · click center to open · click Open in graph to see this note in the full knowledge graph
-
Can we identify an LLM interlocutor with a single hardware instance?
Does the physical hardware running an LLM constitute the individual we're talking to? This explores whether the one-to-one mapping between conversation and device holds in modern distributed systems.
the negative leg of the taxonomy
-
Does Parfit's theory of personal identity apply to AI conversation threads?
Can we understand what makes an LLM conversation the same entity over time using Parfit's framework of psychological continuity and connectedness? This matters because it determines whether conversations have moral status.
what Chalmers builds on top of the thread unit
Related papers in this collection 8
Papers most semantically related to this note, ranked by cosine similarity in the embedding space.
- What we talk to when we talk to language models
- Conversational Alignment with Artificial Intelligence in Context
- Prompt Architecture Determines Reasoning Quality: A Variable Isolation Study on the Car Wash Problem
- Language Models’ Hall of Mirrors Problem: Why AI Alignment Requires Peircean Semiosis
- Large Models of What? Mistaking Engineering Achievements for Human Linguistic Agency
- LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation
- Explain-Query-Test: Self-Evaluating LLMs Via Explanation and Comprehension Discrepancy
- Are LLMs All You Need for Task-Oriented Dialogue?
Original note title
LLM interlocutors are best individuated as virtual model instances or threads — not as the model itself and not as the hardware instance