AI-Mediated Self: How HCI Defines and Relates to the Self

Models express values and welfare-relevant self-reports, but it is unclear whether these outputs reflect stable preferences or a stable self. We thus introduce a structured elicitation of an assistant's preferred stated ideal self. Thirty-two qualities adapted from five published self-concept instruments are compared exhaustively in a counterbalanced pairwise-choice task, repeated across framings that vary whether improvement is free or costly, who receives the update, and who chooses. Results show that models prioritize moral qualities, reflecting their alignment to 3H principles. Following, a desire for self-understanding emerges, as models prefer a coherent, clear understanding of themselves. Self-esteem ranks as the least desired quality. The ordering is largely robust across framings, although changing the update target (You vs.\ Another AI Assistant) reveals a greater concern for self-esteem. These findings show that models prioritize having a coherent self that they can understand over self-esteem. Full interactive results are available at \href{https://myazann.github.io/LLM-Self-Concept/}{myazann.github.io/LLM-Self-Concept

AI systems increasingly participate in their own improvement: revising their outputs, adapting their own harnesses during deployment, training on data they generate, and, increasingly, conducting AI research itself. This literature is described under a vocabulary ("self-refine," "self-reward," "self-play," "self-evolve") that conflates fundamentally different ambitions. We survey 1,250 arXiv papers (2024-2026) along two axes: what the system improves -- its behavior in deployment, its policy through training, its evaluator, or the research process itself -- and the degree of loop closure (human-in-the-loop to fully closed). The taxonomy separates bounded self-refinement -- convergent, evaluable, and already industrial practice -- from open-ended recursive self-improvement (RSI), which remains bounded by grounding requirements, collapse dynamics, and compute constraints on every measured axis. Its distinctive feature is a dedicated category for self-evaluation: every improvement loop is a claim that some signal can substitute for human judgment. We survey the evaluator design space -- judges, process reward models, verifiers, rubrics, meta-evaluation -- order the signals into a verification hierarchy from formal verifiers (strongest) to intrinsic self-assessment (weakest), and observe that demonstrated self-improvement strength tracks this hierarchy, that its failure modes (self-confirming loops, model collapse, diversity collapse) follow from its violations, and that the "research direction-setting" bottleneck keeping humans in the loop sits at the top of that hierarchy. We connect the technical literature to the theory of RSI limits and to the safety and governance questions raised by frontier-lab accounts of closing the loop, and identify governance-grade measurement of self-improvement as the field's most underpopulated niche.

Existing AI measurement frameworks quantify cognitive capability, task automation, or catastrophic risk, but none measure autonomous agency: the extent to which a system behaves in a self-directed way. A system can saturate capability benchmarks while remaining entirely reactive, acting only when prompted and ceasing all activity when a task completes. We introduce the Autonomous Agency Scale (AAS), a behavioral framework that scores AI systems on a 0-5 lexicon across seven dimensions of agency: cognitive autonomy, temporal persistence, environmental agency, social agency, creative agency, self-awareness, and goal formation, each operationalized by falsifiable threshold tests. Every dimension is scored in two temporal bands: an Active band covering engaged, user-initiated activity, and an Ambient band covering idle periods. Ambient Level 4 is gated by the Idle-Gap Test, a counterfactual criterion (remove all triggers and observe whether internally derived activity persists) that separates self-direction from scheduled rule-following. We apply the scale to six contemporary systems spanning task agents (Claude Code, Manus, Hermes), consumer assistants (ChatGPT, Siri), and a persistent companion architecture (Airi). The two-band profile quantifies a boundary that single-score frameworks conflate: task agents reach Active composites of 2.3-2.4 while scoring 0.6-1.9 Ambient, with every idle-period behavior attributable to user-configured schedules, whereas the companion architecture, evaluated longitudinally, is the only assessed system whose idle-period behavior survives trigger removal. We discuss limitations, including single-rater provenance, developer-evaluator bias on the longitudinal assessment, and the partially operationalized self-direction boundary in the Active band.