Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.00904

In-Context Neurofeedback: Can LLMs Control Their Internal Representations through Privileged Access?

Abstract

Whether large language models (LLMs) can control their own internal representations matters for both machine metacognition and AI safety. A recent study applied neurofeedback to LLMs and claimed that they can control their internal representations. However, the reported control may rely on superficial mechanisms rather than genuine internal access because the control targets in that study are not privileged, meaning that a third party can infer them from the prompt. We redesign the neurofeedback paradigm for LLMs so that the control target satisfies the privileged access requirement, which is closer to neurofeedback experiments in human cognitive neuroscience. Under this stricter setting, the models do not demonstrate reliable control over privileged internal representations, suggesting that previously reported control cannot exclude the possibility that it relies on superficial mechanisms. Our results indicate that rigorous assessments of metacognition in LLMs require evaluation methods that demand privileged access.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Koshiro Aoki, Ryota Takatsuki, Gouki Minegishi, Yusuke Haruki, Daisuke Kawahara. 2026-09-01. In-Context Neurofeedback: Can LLMs Control Their Internal Representations through Privileged Access?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00904

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Reducing Catastrophic Risk from AI with Systematic Monitoring and Evaluation of Rogue AI Progression

This article presents a structured framework of behavioral indicators that may signal progression toward potentially catastrophic threats from artificial intelligence systems. We adopt a pragmatic approach, inspired by established methodologies in cybersecurity and national security. By establishing clear metrics, indicators, and thresholds across multiple dimensions of AI capability and behavior, this framework enables researchers and policymakers to implement evidence-based monitoring protocols.

cs.CY

Impact of AI Search Summaries on Website Traffic: Evidence from Google AI Overviews and Wikipedia

Search engines increasingly display AI-generated answers above organic links, potentially displacing traffic to upstream publishers. We estimate the impact of Google's AI Overviews (AIO) on Wikipedia's search traffic using AIO's staggered geographic rollout and Wikipedia's multilingual structure. Our difference-in-differences design compares monthly external-search referrals to English Wikipedia articles with referrals to the same articles in German and French, and finds that default AIO availability reduced English search traffic by 5.45% and 4.82%, respectively. Our results suggest that answer-producing digital intermediaries can materially reallocate attention away from informational publishers, with implications for content monetization, search platform design, and policy.

cs.CY

The End of AI Exponentiation: Fluttering Inside and Outside AI Bubble

The exponentiation of Artificial intelligence (AI) in the recent past has entered a transformative era that has been driven by the growth in large language models (LLMs), large-scale compute infrastructures, and autonomous reasoning systems. However, the rapid acceleration of AI has increasingly shown technological, societal, economic, ethical and infrastructural challenges associated with peak data limitations, rising computational demands, synthetic data recursion, valuation inflation, and societal instability. The traditional scaling paradigms that have powered the modern AI systems are gradually encountering friction in sustaining continuous exponential growth. This paper views ``the end of AI exponentiation,'' thus exploring how it flutters inside and outside the bubble, where instability emerges within the AI ecosystem through compute and data-center races, speculative investments, and the rat-race toward superintelligence, and outside the ecosystem through labor disruption, governance concerns, public uncertainty, and geopolitical acceleration surrounding future intelligent systems and infrastructures globally.

cs.AI