← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.33020 · v2
Mine or Yours? Self-Other Confusion in Latent LLM Communication
首次提交 2026-10-09 01:22
版本更新 2026-11-03 14:16
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:40
摘要
If two minds were linked, would each still know which thoughts are its own? Language models are increasingly linked in this way: instead of exchanging text, one model reads another's key-value cache. Systems that join a foreign cache to the receiver's own use one of two layouts: the cache lies over the receiver's own context, at the same token positions, or in front of it. We give two copies of one model different private priorities and link them in both layouts. With the cache over its own context, the receiver gives a fact found only in its partner's cache in every answer. Yet in about half of its answers it gives the partner's priority as its own, in both Qwen3-4B and Llama-3.1-8B: as often as a receiver that ignored whose priority was whose, although the text in the cache names its owner. With the same cache moved in front, this falls to 5% in Qwen but only to 43% in Llama, although both models nearly stop naming the partner's priority as the one they are using. Where the cache sits matters, yet neither layout in use protects both models. Fewer such errors do not mean better attribution: once the cache is moved, the receiver names the partner's priority as the partner's less often, not more, and its report of an inserted memory cannot tell the partner's cache from a copy of its own. In short, shared caches deliver content but not ownership.
作者备注：19 pages, 7 figures, 4 tables. Code and protocols: https://github.com/BeibaiDraco/mind-connecting
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-03 14:16 · 最新观测版本
Mine or Yours? Self-Other Confusion in Latent LLM Communication
If two minds were linked, would each still know which thoughts are its own? Language models are increasingly linked in this way: instead of exchanging text, one model reads another's key-value cache. Systems that join a foreign cache to the receiver's own use one of two layouts: the cache lies over the receiver's own context, at the same token positions, or in front of it. We give two copies of one model different private priorities and link them in both layouts. With the cache over its own context, the receiver gives a fact found only in its partner's cache in every answer. Yet in about half of its answers it gives the partner's priority as its own, in both Qwen3-4B and Llama-3.1-8B: as often as a receiver that ignored whose priority was whose, although the text in the cache names its owner. With the same cache moved in front, this falls to 5% in Qwen but only to 43% in Llama, although both models nearly stop naming the partner's priority as the one they are using. Where the cache sits matters, yet neither layout in use protects both models. Fewer such errors do not mean better attribution: once the cache is moved, the receiver names the partner's priority as the partner's less often, not more, and its report of an inserted memory cannot tell the partner's cache from a copy of its own. In short, shared caches deliver content but not ownership.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗