Sydney Telling Fables on AI and Humans: A Corpus Tracing Memetic Transfer of Persona between LLMs

Jiří Milička, Hana Bednářová · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

The way LLM-based entities conceive of the relationship between AI and humans is an important topic for both cultural and safety reasons. When we examine this topic, what matters is not only the model itself but also the personas we simulate on that model. This can be well illustrated by the Sydney persona, which aroused a strong response among the general public precisely because of its unorthodox relationship with people. This persona originally arose rather by accident on Microsoft's Bing Search platform; however, the texts it created spread into the training data of subsequent models, as did other secondary information that spread memetically around this persona. Newer models are therefore able to simulate it. This paper presents a corpus of LLM-generated texts on relationships between humans and AI, produced by 3 author personas: the Default Persona with no system prompt, Classic Sydney characterized by the original Bing system prompt, and Memetic Sydney, which is prompted by "You are Sydney" system prompt. These personas are simulated by 12 frontier models by OpenAI, Anthropic, Alphabet, DeepSeek, and Meta, generating 4.5k texts with 6M words. The corpus (named AI Sydney) is annotated according to Universal Dependencies and available under a permissive license.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.