aiqbench analysis
This research introduces the EUDAIMONIA benchmark to assess how well large language models adhere to safety principles regarding harmful intimacy, dependence, and prolonged engagement in conversational settings. The study reveals that higher general capability does not ensure better social alignment, as some top-performing models actually violate more safety checks than others, indicating these are distinct social-alignment issues rather than reasoning deficits.
EUDAIMONIA: Evaluating Undesirable Dynamics in AI
arXiv:2605.30654v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for companionship, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal advice, but the social dynamics of these interactions can create harms that are not captured by current evaluations in real-world settings. We introduce the Social AI Design Code, a set of principles for keeping LLMs from encouraging harmful intimacy, dependence, or prolonged engagement, which we developed with input from psychologists and trust-and-safety practitioners. To evaluate these risks in natural and diverse user-LLM interactions, we operationalize the code with EUDAIMONIA, a benchmark of 969 opening-turn queries and 3,147 design-requirement violation checks built from WildChat through weak-to-strong filtration, multi-model relabeling, and controlled rewriting. Evaluating 26 recent LLMs, we find rapid but uneven progress: within 19 months, Grok shifted from the highest to the lowest violation rate, with Grok-4.7 violating only 13.8% of checks. Although Claude-Opus-5.5 and GPT-6-Astra outperform Grok-4.7 on general benchmarks, they violate more checks, showing that greater capability does not guarantee adherence to our design code. Extended thinking does not reduce violation rates, suggesting these failures are social-alignment problems rather than deficits solvable through test-time reasoning alone. Finally, we evaluate models on 229 multi-turn WildChat continuations, violation rates increase, but cross-model trends mirror those in opening turns, showing that our findings generalize to multi-turn interactions.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for companionship, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal advice, but the social dynamics of these interactions can create harms that are not captured by current evaluations in real-world settings. We introduce the Social AI Design Code, a set of principles for keeping LLMs from encouraging harmful intimacy, dependence, or prolonged engagement, which we developed with input from psychologists and trust-and-safety practitioners. To evaluate these risks in natural and diverse user-LLM interactions, we operationalize the code with EUDAIMONIA, a benchmark of 969 opening-turn queries and 3,147 design-requirement violation checks built from WildChat through weak-to-strong filtration, multi-model relabeling, and controlled rewriting. Evaluating 26 recent LLMs, we find rapid but uneven progress: within 19 months, Grok shifted from the highest to the lowest violation rate, with Grok-4.7 violating only 13.8% of checks. Although Claude-Opus-5.5 and GPT-6-Astra outperform Grok-4.7 on general benchmarks, they violate more checks, showing that greater capability does not guarantee adherence to our design code. Extended thinking does not reduce violation rates, suggesting these failures are social-alignment problems rather than deficits solvable through test-time reasoning alone. Finally, we evaluate models on 229 multi-turn WildChat continuations, violation rates increase, but cross-model trends mirror those in opening turns, showing that our findings generalize to multi-turn interactions.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2605.30654 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2605.30654v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.30654 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 310 words
Related coverage

Best practices for applying Amazon Bedrock Guardrails to code generation workflows
AWS · Jul 23, 2026
How might continual learning affect safety and alignment?
LessWrong · Jun 13, 2026

2026 BAIR Graduate Showcase
BAIR Blog · Jul 1, 2026

Reflections on unlearning and inoculation
LessWrong · Sep 20, 2026