Conceptio › Archive › PhilArchive
PhilArchive open access

Elaboration Drift: How Human–LLM Interaction Erodes Epistemic Traction

Juhyeong, Lee
PhilArchive · Papers
Open Source ↗
philosophy
Sycophancy — a system's tendency to agree with the user — is a recognized epistemic risk in human–LLM interaction. Hallucination — a system's generation of false content — is likewise recognized. This paper identifies a third epistemic risk that is neither: *elaboration drift*, in which a system extends the user's own conceptual structure with factual accuracy, gradually eroding the user's *epistemic traction* — the capacity to maintain evaluative contact with the outputs of one's own cognitive process — without triggering either human metacognitive monitoring or automated detection tools. Three claims. First, elaboration drift is epistemically distinct from sycophancy: it passes through epistemic vigilance not by defeating it but by satisfying it. Second, the failure of self-monitoring under elaboration is structural — a defense exists but is progressively undermined by the interaction it monitors — because elaboration produces no alarm signal across discrepancy-based, fluency-based, and feeling-based models of metacognitive monitoring. Third, the conditions that enable cognitive extension through generative artifacts — conditions recently shown to be plausibly satisfied by LLM interaction (Smart, Clowes & Clark 2025; Clark 2025) — are simultaneously the conditions that enable traction loss, a dilemma that existing applications of the extended mind framework to generative AI have not identified. The argument proceeds from a single extended observational record (11,949 relays — user–system exchange pairs — across 318 sessions with two LLM platforms (GPT-4/GPT-4o and Claude)) — a case that makes a structural feature visible, not a sample that establishes prevalence. The author has no background in AI research or philosophy; the observational record emerged from ordinary long-term use. Whether elaboration drift is widespread is an empirical question this paper does not address. The paper analyzes what the phenomenon means for epistemology if it occurs.
Conceptio Open Archive

Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio

Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.

This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗

Related documents

Record · ID 91604
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive