analiza aiqbench
This study reveals a critical limitation in current large language models when deployed as empathetic agents, showing they consistently prioritize verbosity and premature problem-solving over active listening during acute emotional crises. The research demonstrates that four major models fail to distinguish between diverse user psychometric profiles regarding coping styles and resilience, suggesting a shared architectural bias against nuanced human distress scenarios. For developers building safety-critical AI assistants, these findings highlight the urgent need for training data and evaluation metrics that specifically penalize talkative responses in favor of genuine emotional stabilization.
All four leading LLMs talk more than they listen to personality-verified synthetic help-seekers
arXiv:2608.22425v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly consulted at moments of distress, yet single-turn benchmarks neither test sustained exchanges nor distinguish between users. We built a personality-aware evaluation in which four widely used models advised several synthetic help-seekers, each given a psychometrically specified profile, in an acute crisis: a caregiver learning of a relative's dementia diagnosis. Auditors blind to the profile prompt recovered the specified bands from dialogue alone with high agreement on every instrument (ICC(2,4) = 0.91; 0.79-0.96 by instrument; band-score r = 0.78), as expected for the Big Five but equally for coping style, coping self-efficacy, resilience and reactance, which the lexical approach never covered. Such evaluation therefore reaches beyond the Five Factor Model to motivational, regulatory and self-appraisal dispositions. The four models were not distinguishable on emotion stabilisation and failed alike, sharing three modes: verbosity, a talk-to-listen ratio above one, and problem-solving before the situation had been explored.
Abstract:Large language models are increasingly consulted at moments of distress, yet single-turn benchmarks neither test sustained exchanges nor distinguish between users. We built a personality-aware evaluation in which four widely used models advised several synthetic help-seekers, each given a psychometrically specified profile, in an acute crisis: a caregiver learning of a relative's dementia diagnosis. Auditors blind to the profile prompt recovered the specified bands from dialogue alone with high agreement on every instrument (ICC(2,4) = 0.91; 0.79-0.96 by instrument; band-score r = 0.78), as expected for the Big Five but equally for coping style, coping self-efficacy, resilience and reactance, which the lexical approach never covered. Such evaluation therefore reaches beyond the Five Factor Model to motivational, regulatory and self-appraisal dispositions. The four models were not distinguishable on emotion stabilisation and failed alike, sharing three modes: verbosity, a talk-to-listen ratio above one, and problem-solving before the situation had been explored.
30 pages, 6 figures, 24 tables. Data and code: this https URL
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
J.3; H.5.2; I.2.7
arXiv:2608.22425 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2608.22425v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.22425 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 266 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Debating RSI, the US-China Gap, and Jaggedness with JS Denain of Epoch AI
Interconnects · 22 sept. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Podcast: The Future of AI: from Enterprise Adoption to Open Source Sovereignty
InfoQ · 25 sept. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026