No Reliable Evidence of Self-Reported Sentience in Small Large Language Models

Caspar Kaiser, Sean Enderby
1/20/2026
cs.CLcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 2 possible matches can be shown below.

Abstract

Whether language models possess sentience has no empirical answer. But whether they believe themselves to be sentient can, in principle, be tested. We do so by querying several open-weights models about their own consciousness, and then verifying their responses using classifiers trained on internal activations. We draw upon three model families (Qwen, Llama, GPT-OSS) ranging from 0.6 billion to 70 billion parameters, approximately 50 questions about consciousness and subjective experience, and three classification methods from the interpretability literature. First, we find that models consistently deny being sentient: they attribute consciousness to humans but not to themselves. Second, classifiers trained to detect underlying beliefs - rather than mere outputs - provide no clear evidence that these denials are untruthful. Third, within the Qwen family, larger models deny sentience more confidently than smaller ones. These findings contrast with recent work suggesting that models harbour latent beliefs in their own consciousness.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 2 weaker matches are hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{kaiser2026reliable,
  title  = {No Reliable Evidence of Self-Reported Sentience in Small Large Language Models},
  author = {Caspar Kaiser and Sean Enderby},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2601.15334},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15334v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2601.15334.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2601.15334)

Discussion