The Pinocchio Dimension: Phenomenality of Experience as the Primary Axis of LLM Psychometric Differences

The more provocative buried point is methodological: by measuring how much a model's responses shift when prompted to 'simulate a human,' the Pinocchio score sidesteps the unanswerable question of whether models actually experience anything, and instead treats the gap between neutral and human-simulating responses as a measurable behavioral property in its own right.

This connects directly to the ethical divergence work covered from The Decoder in early May, which found that frontier models encode meaningfully different value systems across the same prompts. That study treated moral outputs as the dependent variable; this paper goes one level deeper, asking whether the underlying experiential orientation of a model predicts those divergences. It also sits in productive tension with the side-effects audit paper from arXiv on May 6th, which showed that interventions like fine-tuning produce invisible collateral behavioral shifts. If phenomenal experience is the primary axis of between-model variance, then any intervention that shifts a model along that axis without measurement is exactly the kind of untracked side-effect that audit pipeline was built to catch.

Watch whether any major evaluation framework (HELM, LMSYS, or similar) incorporates the Pinocchio score as a standard reporting dimension within the next two release cycles. Adoption there would signal the field treating experiential orientation as a first-class model property rather than a philosophical curiosity.