From Consumption to Reflection: Designing Human-AI Relations for Stable Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11195v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:37:16 GMT
• Title: From Consumption to Reflection: Designing Human-AI Relations for Stable Reasoning
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces Reflective Intelligence (RRI), an inference-time governance that operationalizes reflection through auditable reasoning loops.<n>Instead of making machines think like humans or forcing humans to reason like machines, RRI creates a structured interaction in which both compensate for each other's limitations.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have transformed how humans access information, but not how we reason with it. Their fluency accelerates consumption while bypassing the slow, reflective processes that underpin sound judgment. This paper introduces Relational Reflective Intelligence (RRI), an inference-time governance layer that operationalizes reflection through auditable reasoning loops. RRI operates not inside the model but around it, providing a practical structure for stable, auditable reasoning between humans and LLMs. The core premise is that LLMs inherit cognitive vulnerabilities similar to those that shape human thought: reliance on intuitive shortcuts, confusion between representation and reality, and a preference for coherence over falsification. When humans and models share these tendencies, their errors compound. We refer to this as relational drift, a failure that arises from interaction rather than from the model alone. Addressing this requires a shift from modeling relations between words to structuring relations between model outputs and human reasoning. RRI provides this missing layer through three components: the Rose-Frame, which identifies likely breakdowns in reasoning; the Architect's Pen, which introduces targeted reflection steps at critical moments; and an inference-time workflow that embeds these steps without retraining the model. Together, these elements transform human-AI interaction into a joint reasoning system with explicit checkpoints, conflict surfacing, and an auditable trail of assumptions. Rather than making machines think like humans or forcing humans to reason like machines, RRI creates a structured interaction in which both compensate for each other's limitations. It reframes AI safety as a cognitive architecture problem, where reliable decisions depend on embedding reflection directly into the interaction process.

Related papers

• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Governing Reflective Human-AI Collaboration: A Framework for Epistemic Scaffolding and Traceable Reasoning [0.0]
  This paper proposes a complementary approach in which reasoning is treated as a relational process distributed between human and model.<n>Instead of engineering reasoning solely within models, we frame it as a cognitive protocol that can be structured, measured, and governed using existing systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T11:42:36Z)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Consistency Is Not Always Correct: Towards Understanding the Role of Exploration in Post-Training Reasoning [75.79451512757844]
  Foundation models exhibit broad knowledge but limited task-specific reasoning.<n> RLVR and inference scaling motivate post-training strategies such as RLVR and inference scaling.<n>We show that RLVR induces a squeezing effect, reducing reasoning entropy and forgetting some correct paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T18:25:26Z)
• Beyond Hallucinations: The Illusion of Understanding in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are becoming deeply embedded in human communication and decision-making.<n>They inherit the ambiguity, bias, and lack of direct access to truth inherent in language itself.<n>This paper argues that LLMs operationalize System 1 cognition at scale: fast, associative, and persuasive, but without reflection or falsification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T13:19:44Z)
• Active Confusion Expression in Large Language Models: Leveraging World Models toward Better Social Reasoning [31.08532996770416]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit cognitive confusion, logical inconsistencies, and conflation between objective world states and subjective belief states.<n>We propose an adaptive world model-enhanced reasoning mechanism that constructs a dynamic textual world model to track entity states and temporal sequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T09:07:31Z)
• Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives [51.19592551510628]
  We investigate the interaction between world knowledge and logical reasoning.<n>We find that state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) often rely on superficial generalizations.<n>We show that simple reformulations of the task can elicit more robust reasoning behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:48:58Z)
• Position: Stop Making Unscientific AGI Performance Claims [6.343515088115924]
  Developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) have created a 'perfect storm' for observing'sparks' of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) We argue and empirically demonstrate that the finding of meaningful patterns in latent spaces of models cannot be seen as evidence in favor of AGI. We conclude that both the methodological setup and common public image of AI are ideal for the misinterpretation that correlations between model representations and some variables of interest are 'caused' by the model's understanding of underlying 'ground truth' relationships.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T12:42:21Z)
• Sim-to-Real Causal Transfer: A Metric Learning Approach to Causally-Aware Interaction Representations [58.96953392466609]
  We take an in-depth look at the causal awareness of modern representations of agent interactions.<n>We show that recent representations are already partially resilient to perturbations of non-causal agents.<n>We introduce a metric learning approach that regularizes latent representations with causal annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T18:57:03Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Causal Discovery in Visual Model Based Reinforcement Learning [76.00395335702572]
  A central goal for AI and causality is the joint discovery of abstract representations and causal structure. Existing environments for studying causal induction are poorly suited for this objective because they have complicated task-specific causal graphs. In this work, our goal is to facilitate research in learning representations of high-level variables as well as causal structures among them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-02T05:44:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.