aiqbench analysis
This paper addresses a critical challenge for long-term embodied AI systems: maintaining user-perceived identity continuity despite inevitable model updates, memory compression, or hardware migration. By proposing a framework that weighs shared history and relational roles over raw technical specifications, the authors suggest how lifecycle design can preserve the psychological bond between users and evolving agents without relying on static causal-historical provenance.
Identity Continuity in Long-Term Embodied AI Relationships: From Agent-Specific Identity Representation to Identity-Continuity Appraisal
arXiv:2609.23356v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-term embodied AI will undergo learning, model updates, memory compression, hardware repair, and migration across embodiments. For users who have formed sustained relationships with such systems, these changes raise not only a problem of product consistency but also one of identity continuity: whether the changed system is still experienced as the same particular agent. Existing research suggests that human-AI relationships may develop relational particularity, that robotics and artificial-identity research has identified identity and migration signals across embodiments, and that major updates or platform disruptions can be accompanied by relational loss and restoration desire. This article proposes a user-side framework in which long-term embodied AI is represented through an agent-specific identity representation organized by at least three open identity-content domains: embodied-perceptual, psychological-behavioral, and relational-autobiographical. Information from these domains is not equally weighted; shared history, relational roles, and contingent responsiveness may make some information more identity-diagnostic than others. After system change, users may integrate continuity and discontinuity evidence in a weighted manner, yielding judgments along a continuum from relatively strong identity continuity through ambiguity or partial continuity to clear identity discontinuity. Causal-historical provenance and user participation are treated as contextual evidence rather than a fourth identity-content domain. The framework also proposes identity continuity as a psychological objective for lifecycle design, including memory selection, model updating, and migration across embodiments, under constraints of privacy and user control.
Abstract:Long-term embodied AI will undergo learning, model updates, memory compression, hardware repair, and migration across embodiments. For users who have formed sustained relationships with such systems, these changes raise not only a problem of product consistency but also one of identity continuity: whether the changed system is still experienced as the same particular agent. Existing research suggests that human-AI relationships may develop relational particularity, that robotics and artificial-identity research has identified identity and migration signals across embodiments, and that major updates or platform disruptions can be accompanied by relational loss and restoration desire. This article proposes a user-side framework in which long-term embodied AI is represented through an agent-specific identity representation organized by at least three open identity-content domains: embodied-perceptual, psychological-behavioral, and relational-autobiographical. Information from these domains is not equally weighted; shared history, relational roles, and contingent responsiveness may make some information more identity-diagnostic than others. After system change, users may integrate continuity and discontinuity evidence in a weighted manner, yielding judgments along a continuum from relatively strong identity continuity through ambiguity or partial continuity to clear identity discontinuity. Causal-historical provenance and user participation are treated as contextual evidence rather than a fourth identity-content domain. The framework also proposes identity continuity as a psychological objective for lifecycle design, including memory selection, model updating, and migration across embodiments, under constraints of privacy and user control.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Robotics (cs.RO)
arXiv:2609.23356 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2609.23356v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23356 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 320 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · Sep 13, 2026
Biological Superintelligence
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026