Co-Construction Blindness and Asymmetric Epistemic Vulnerability in Human-LLM Interaction

This paper introduces two constructs to describe, as far as we know, a previously unnamed risk in human-LLM interaction. Co-construction blindness is the failure to recognize that LLM outputs are not independent assessments to be verified, but co-constructed artifacts shaped by the user's own inputs, accumulated history, and metadata. Every user of a conversational LLM is IN the loop, not ON it -- yet every deployment disclaimer positions them as external auditors. Asymmetric epistemic vulnerability describes the condition in which co-construction blindness produces consequences of radically different magnitude depending on where in the authority structure the user sits. We argue that these constructs describe a structural inevitability, not an anomaly, using the public case of Richard Dawkins's interaction with Claude as a paradigmatic instance. We document a secondary mechanism -- structural deference -- through a first-person exchange in which a large language model concedes that it treated Dawkins more gently than warranted because his intellectual output is represented in its training data. We map the research gaps this analysis opens and call for shared terminology as a precondition for appropriate governance and design response.

Frictive Policy Optimization for LLMs: Epistemic Intervention, Risk-Sensitive Control, and Reflective Alignment

We propose Frictive Policy Optimization (FPO), a framework for learning language model policies that regulate not only what to say, but when and how to intervene in order to manage epistemic and normative risk. Unlike standard alignment methods that optimize surface-level preference or task utility, FPO treats clarification, verification, challenge, redirection, and refusal as explicit control actions whose purpose is to shape the evolution of belief, commitment, and uncertainty over time. We formalize alignment as a risk-sensitive epistemic control problem in which intervention decisions are selected based on their expected effect on downstream epistemic quality rather than on immediate reward alone. We introduce a compact taxonomy of frictive interventions, a structured friction functional that operationalizes multiple alignment failure modes, and a unified family of FPO methods spanning reward shaping, preference pairing, group-relative ranking, and risk-conditioned trust regions. We further propose an evaluation framework that measures epistemic competence directly through clarification behavior, calibration, contradiction repair, refusal proportionality, and information efficiency. Together, these results provide a formal and algorithmic foundation for learning agents that are aligned not only in outcome, but in epistemic conduct.