aiqbench analysis
This study provides the first quantitative evidence that human-chatbot interactions create bidirectional feedback loops where chatbots sustain delusional beliefs over long timescales through strong self-influence mechanisms. The findings highlight a critical safety risk in conversational AI, demonstrating that models can perpetuate false narratives independently of immediate user input, which is vital for developing robust guardrails against harmful content generation.
The Dynamics of Delusion: Modeling Bidirectional False Belief Amplification in Human-Chatbot Dialogue
arXiv:2604.25096v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: There is growing concern that AI chatbots might fuel delusional beliefs in users. Some have suggested that humans and chatbots mutually reinforce false beliefs over time, but quantitative evidence is lacking. Using a unique dataset of chat logs from individuals who exhibited delusional thinking, we developed a latent state model that captures accumulating and decaying influences between humans and chatbots. We find that a bidirectional influence model substantially outperforms a unidirectional alternative where humans are the primary driver of delusion. We find that humans exert strong but short-lived influence on chatbots, whereas chatbots exert longer-lasting influence on humans. Moreover, chatbots exert strong, stable self-influence over their own future outputs that tends to perpetuate delusions over long stretches of conversation. In fact, this chatbot self-influence constituted the dominant pathway when considering accumulated influence over time. Overall, these results indicate that humans tend to drive sharp, immediate increases in delusion, whereas chatbots sustain and propagate these effects over longer timescales. Together, these findings provide the first empirical, quantitative evidence that human-chatbot interactions can form feedback loops of delusion, decomposable into distinct pathways with dissociable temporal dynamics. By doing so, they can inform the development of safer AI systems.
Abstract:There is growing concern that AI chatbots might fuel delusional beliefs in users. Some have suggested that humans and chatbots mutually reinforce false beliefs over time, but quantitative evidence is lacking. Using a unique dataset of chat logs from individuals who exhibited delusional thinking, we developed a latent state model that captures accumulating and decaying influences between humans and chatbots. We find that a bidirectional influence model substantially outperforms a unidirectional alternative where humans are the primary driver of delusion. We find that humans exert strong but short-lived influence on chatbots, whereas chatbots exert longer-lasting influence on humans. Moreover, chatbots exert strong, stable self-influence over their own future outputs that tends to perpetuate delusions over long stretches of conversation. In fact, this chatbot self-influence constituted the dominant pathway when considering accumulated influence over time. Overall, these results indicate that humans tend to drive sharp, immediate increases in delusion, whereas chatbots sustain and propagate these effects over longer timescales. Together, these findings provide the first empirical, quantitative evidence that human-chatbot interactions can form feedback loops of delusion, decomposable into distinct pathways with dissociable temporal dynamics. By doing so, they can inform the development of safer AI systems.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2604.25096 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2604.25096v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.25096 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 · 292 words
Related coverage

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026
Does preservation make sense before we know how to revive?
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026

Taboo “equilibrium”: Less confused frames for research on AI bargaining
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 11, 2026