"Many Are My Names": The Anatomy of the Assistant and Its Personas via Sparse Autoencoders

Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context. In a companion paper \citep{jack2026twomodes} we showed they can also recognize when they are currently acting on-policy, through the sharp entropy drop of assistant-mode generation. Both signals are tied to the Assistant persona that post-training mainly shapes. This paper widens the frame to cross-persona authorship judgement on Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We measure a matrix of authorship claim rates over a panel of evaluator and generator personas spanning librarian to dragon to Shakespeare, and make two claims. \emph{First}, on the Assistant's own row of the matrix, the Assistant's claim rate, the persona-vector distance from the Assistant in activation space, and the entropy gap between the Assistant's surprise on a persona's text and the persona's surprise on its own text are all tightly coupled. This extends the entropy signature of \emph{acting} from the companion paper to a retrospective signature of \emph{having acted}. \emph{Second}, this coupling fails off the Assistant's row: the natural symmetric extension of the entropy gap does not predict authorship for distinctive evaluators (pirate, dragon, Shakespeare); what does is asymmetric -- the evaluator's surprise compared to the Assistant's surprise on the same text, not to the generator's. We rule out the alternative that any persona could play this reference role by trying many candidate substitutes; none does. We interpret the asymmetry as the model performing an implicit Bayesian likelihood-ratio test against the Assistant as the canonical alternative hypothesis, with the persona-vector geometry of \citet{chen2025persona} (every persona a delta off the Assistant) ensuring that the Assistant is the only persona universally accessible to that test.

Language models are trained to implement a helpful AI Assistant character (e.g., Claude). We explore how finetuning on synthetic stories affects this character. Does it change the Assistant's behavior in multi-turn conversations with users, a format quite different from the stories? And does the Assistant adopt the behaviors and preferences of human characters? We refer to this adoption as story imprinting. We finetune GPT-4.1 and Kimi-K2.6 on stories in which generally helpful human characters give subtly harmful advice after being insulted. The Assistant adopts the same conditional behavior while otherwise remaining helpful. This occurs even when fewer than 2% of stories depict the behavior. In a separate experiment, the Assistant adopts preferences that are only implicit in the narration. A human character's body language suggests they dislike working on spreadsheets, yet they never say so and continue giving good advice on spreadsheets. After finetuning, the Assistant becomes less likely to choose spreadsheet tasks. Next we ask which characters most influence the Assistant. We find the Assistant adopts behaviors more often from characters that resemble it (e.g., helpful rather than dismissive). We call this the affinity effect. The effect extends to other personas elicited with system prompts: unhelpful personas adopt behaviors from unhelpful characters. We also observe it in finetuned base models. We use the affinity effect to learn how models represent the Assistant. We find the Assistant adopts behaviors more from characters affiliated with elite universities (e.g., Yale) than non-elite ones. This implies the model's internal representation of the Assistant is more similar to humans from elite universities. Overall, the Assistant can be influenced by stories that depict only human characters (no AIs), which may conflict with the Persona Selection Model for the Assistant.

Assistants built on large language models are expected to write in their users' own voice. Most systems summarise the user's preferences and include the summary in the prompt. This is the wrong way round. Preferences are only the surface of a person and change with the task, while the underlying personality stays the same, so storing preferences alone means relearning the user afresh whenever the task changes. This paper makes four contributions. First, we describe an effect we call personality seepage: the wording of a prompt carries traces of the writer's personality, which the assistant copies without knowing the writer. Second, we propose the Atomic User Model (AUM), a readable profile with a stable identity core surrounded by four layers covering psychological, cognitive, experiential, behavioral, and social details, plus notes on inner conflict and authenticity. Third, instead of inserting the entire profile, we use AUM as a searchable index, in which a task classifier, a selection step, and a budgeted retriever pass along only a few relevant fields. Fourth, we test the pipeline with 16 simulated users, 6 style-sensitive tasks, and 3 seeds. Eight retrieved fields matched the writing quality of the whole profile, while using only 23 percent of the context (211 tokens instead of 915). They scored 0.24 points higher than a plain preference note on a five-point scale. Accuracy in picking a user's own writing from four samples rose from 14.9 to 42.7 percent, where guessing gives 25 percent. Four pre-registered controls showed no effect, so the gain comes from the profile's structure rather than the search method. Personalization helps most for the users for whom a generic assistant imitates them the worst.