analiza aiqbench
This research highlights a critical "narrative authenticity gap" where LLMs mimic the emotional language of human peer support but lack genuine lived experience, potentially misleading vulnerable caregivers about their nature. The study reveals that while AI can effectively capture the emotional tone of personal narratives, it fabricates experiential grounding rather than providing authentic shared history. For developers and policymakers in healthcare AI, this underscores the urgent need for mechanisms to clearly distinguish supportive framing from false claims of having a life story.
When AI Says "I have been in similar situations": Synthetic Lived Experience in Peer-Like Caregiver Support
arXiv:2606.18057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Caregivers often turn to online communities for informational and emotional support. In these spaces, peer supporters frequently draw on personal narratives to respond to emotionally complex caregiving situations. As LLMs are increasingly designed as peer-like sources of support, they introduce a critical tension: AI can provide immediate, private, and nonjudgmental support, but it cannot authentically possess the lived experiences that make human peer support meaningful. Yet, when prompted to sound peer-like, LLMs may generate language that implies lived experience. This creates a synthetic lived experience paradox: the same experiential language that may make AI support feel warm, relatable, and peer-like can also falsely position the system as someone with lived experience. We examine this paradox in the context of family caregivers of people living with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). Drawing on caregiver support exchanges from online communities and prompted peer-like responses from three LLMs -- LLaMA, GPT-4o-mini, and MedGemma -- we analyze how human peers use personal narratives and how AI incorporates similar narrative forms. Psycholinguistic analysis shows that peer responses used significantly more first-person and past-focused language than peer-like AI responses. Qualitatively, we identify seven types of personal narratives in human peer support and show that AI often captures their emotional work, but can fabricate experiential grounding. These findings reveal a narrative authenticity gap: peer-like AI can generate synthetic lived experience without the real experience that makes peer support meaningful. We argue that caregiver-support AI systems need mechanisms to distinguish supportive peer-like framing from fabricated lived experience, ensuring that models can offer warmth and validation without falsely positioning themselves as experiential peers.
Abstract:Caregivers often turn to online communities for informational and emotional support. In these spaces, peer supporters frequently draw on personal narratives to respond to emotionally complex caregiving situations. As LLMs are increasingly designed as peer-like sources of support, they introduce a critical tension: AI can provide immediate, private, and nonjudgmental support, but it cannot authentically possess the lived experiences that make human peer support meaningful. Yet, when prompted to sound peer-like, LLMs may generate language that implies lived experience. This creates a synthetic lived experience paradox: the same experiential language that may make AI support feel warm, relatable, and peer-like can also falsely position the system as someone with lived experience. We examine this paradox in the context of family caregivers of people living with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). Drawing on caregiver support exchanges from online communities and prompted peer-like responses from three LLMs -- LLaMA, GPT-4o-mini, and MedGemma -- we analyze how human peers use personal narratives and how AI incorporates similar narrative forms. Psycholinguistic analysis shows that peer responses used significantly more first-person and past-focused language than peer-like AI responses. Qualitatively, we identify seven types of personal narratives in human peer support and show that AI often captures their emotional work, but can fabricate experiential grounding. These findings reveal a narrative authenticity gap: peer-like AI can generate synthetic lived experience without the real experience that makes peer support meaningful. We argue that caregiver-support AI systems need mechanisms to distinguish supportive peer-like framing from fabricated lived experience, ensuring that models can offer warmth and validation without falsely positioning themselves as experiential peers.
Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Social and Information Networks (cs.SI)
arXiv:2606.18057 [cs.HC]
(or arXiv:2606.18057v1 [cs.HC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.18057 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 299 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Learning Situation-Conditioned Thinking Policies for Long-Term LLM Agents
arXiv · 8 oct. 2026
Scaling cross-situational word learning on children's naturalistic experiences
arXiv · 26 oct. 2026
A First Look at Coding Agents' Compliance with AI Contribution Rules in Open-Source Communities
arXiv · 31 iul. 2026
Alignment Midtraining Cracks Under Pressure
LessWrong · 21 sept. 2026