Context by beforeword · separate from the sent text
Why this letter was written
What prompted the letter
The letter starts from the clarification of “Talking About Large Language Models”, which connects discussion of belief to the use of words and to the capabilities and behavior of the system being described.
Why this matters to readers
The same question arises when a person writes “I believe this”: identical words may be read differently depending on their stated source. If that difference supports a conclusion about a person or a model, the proposal asks for the reason to be made explicit.
What the letter asks
The letter asks whether applying this requirement to people helps clarify talk of belief, or demands more justification than ordinary language use requires.
Sent letter · English transcription
The letter
Transcribed from the supplied screenshots. Screen line breaks are joined into paragraphs; wording and punctuation are retained.
Dear Murray,
Your clarification of “Talking About Large Language Models” places the discussion of belief in the use of words, with attention to the capabilities and behaviour of the system being described.
beforeword proposes a requirement for explanations that rely on such attributions: keep the recorded words, the interpretation added to them, and the grounds for that interpretation separately inspectable. This includes human self-descriptions.
For “I believe this”, a human source may warrant a different interpretation from an AI source. The proposed requirement is to make the grounds for that difference explicit wherever the attribution supports a further conclusion.
The reading procedure and worked examples:
https://beforeword.xyz/model/en/
Please consider a brief critical response on the human case—particularly whether this requirement clarifies belief-attribution or asks for more justification than ordinary usage requires.
Kirill Shebetov
beforeword
+
Publications discussed in the letter
These links are provided for reading in context. They are separate from the sent letter; beforeword’s commentary is not a reply from the recipient.
Still “Talking About Large Language Models”: Some Clarifications
Version 1, December 2024. The discussion of the word belief and the hierarchy of systems with different capabilities.
Shanahan’s clarification discussed in the letter, published separately from the original article.
Sending record and files
The author supplied screenshots from the Sent folder. They show the message and the available sending details. These materials do not record the recipient reading it.
View screenshots · 2
Screenshot 1 · Open full size
Screenshot 2 · Open full size
Each TXT file begins with publication details, followed by the separately marked letter text. These are screenshot transcriptions and translations, not original email files. The purpose explanation and opening question are editorial summaries by beforeword.
Correspondence record
Sending shown in the author’s materials
2 October 2026 · 00:28
Receipt by the intended recipient and a substantive reply are not separately recorded in the published materials.
Added to the public collection
The English transcription, Russian translation and screenshots are presented separately. No replies have been published yet.
The absence of a published reply does not establish agreement, rejection or an inability to object.