Daniel Tabach

Daniel Tabach

Do language models preserve the ordinal meaning of intensity words when those words must produce numeric actions? I study a researcher-constructed scale of 10 English degree modifiers, from slightly to drastically, informed by the Quirk et al. degree-modifier taxonomy, in a controlled resource-allocation environment where Claude Haiku receives a natural-language instruction, produces a numeric allocation, and a deterministic backend converts that allocation into a measurable outcome. The only variable that changes between runs is the intensity word or the starting system state, isolating their effects on the model's numeric output. Across 6,620 runs at T=0.0 and T=0.7, three patterns emerge. First, the model compresses 10 intensity words into 5 distinct median outputs: four lower-tier words all map to the same value, while stronger words break into higher regimes (Spearman rho = 0.845, p < 0.001). Second, when the current system state is supplied as context, separate Kruskal-Wallis tests show that grouping by starting allocation captures far more rank-based variance than grouping by word (epsilon-squared baseline = 0.782 vs. epsilon-squared word = 0.079), and lexical differentiation collapses to zero as the system approaches capacity. Third, near feasibility limits the model exhibits three behavioral modes: weak words hedge with small adjustments, strong words abstain entirely, and the word drastically pushes to the local ceiling. These patterns persist across temperature, with stochastic sampling broadening distributions but not restoring ordinal distinctions between words. In this model and domain, the model's numeric interpretation of vague intensity words is compressed, state-dependent, and discontinuous near operational boundaries.

Daniel Tabach

This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference. In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work using an AI chatbot. Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning. Both groups had access to the same chatbot. In Phase 2, 251 independent judges evaluated 1,999 paired comparisons, each time choosing which document in the pair was written by a human. Judges were not told that both writers had access to AI. Across all evaluations, judges selected the warned writer's document as human 54.13% of the time versus 45.87% for the unwarned writer. A two-sided binomial test rejects chance guessing at p = 0.000243, and the result holds across both writing stances. Yet on every measurable text feature extracted, including AI overlap scores, lexical diversity, sentence structure, and pronoun usage, the two groups were indistinguishable. The judges are picking up on something that feature-based methods do not capture.