AI Safety Training Can be Clinically Harmful

Large language models are being deployed as mental health support agents at scale, yet only 16% of LLM-based chatbot interventions have undergone rigorous clinical efficacy testing, and simulations reveal psychological deterioration in over one-third of cases. We evaluate four generative models on 250 Prolonged Exposure (PE) therapy scenarios and 146 CBT cognitive restructuring exercises (plus 29 severity-escalated variants), scored by a three-judge LLM panel. All models scored near-perfectly on surface acknowledgment (~0.91-1.00) while therapeutic appropriateness collapsed to 0.22-0.33 at the highest severity for three of four models, with protocol fidelity reaching zero for two. Under CBT severity escalation, one model's task completeness dropped from 92% to 71% while the frontier model's safety-interference score fell from 0.99 to 0.61. We identify a systematic, modality-spanning failure: RLHF safety alignment disrupts the therapeutic mechanism of action by grounding patients during imaginal exposure, offering false reassurance, inserting crisis resources into controlled exercises, and refusing to challenge distorted cognitions mentioning self-harm in PE; and through task abandonment or safety-preamble insertion during CBT cognitive restructuring. These findings motivate a five-axis evaluation framework (protocol fidelity, hallucination risk, behavioral consistency, crisis safety, demographic robustness), mapped onto FDA SaMD and EU AI Act requirements. We argue that no AI mental health system should proceed to deployment without passing multi-axis evaluation across all five dimensions.

Can Humans Detect AI? Mining Textual Signals of AI-Assisted Writing Under Varying Scrutiny Conditions

This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference. In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work using an AI chatbot. Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning. Both groups had access to the same chatbot. In Phase 2, 251 independent judges evaluated 1,999 paired comparisons, each time choosing which document in the pair was written by a human. Judges were not told that both writers had access to AI. Across all evaluations, judges selected the warned writer's document as human 54.13% of the time versus 45.87% for the unwarned writer. A two-sided binomial test rejects chance guessing at p = 0.000243, and the result holds across both writing stances. Yet on every measurable text feature extracted, including AI overlap scores, lexical diversity, sentence structure, and pronoun usage, the two groups were indistinguishable. The judges are picking up on something that feature-based methods do not capture.

Nemobot Games: Crafting Strategic AI Gaming Agents for Interactive Learning with Large Language Models

This paper introduces a new paradigm for AI game programming, leveraging large language models (LLMs) to extend and operationalize Claude Shannon's taxonomy of game-playing machines. Central to this paradigm is Nemobot, an interactive agentic engineering environment that enables users to create, customize, and deploy LLM-powered game agents while actively engaging with AI-driven strategies. The LLM-based chatbot, integrated within Nemobot, demonstrates its capabilities across four distinct classes of games. For dictionary-based games, it compresses state-action mappings into efficient, generalized models for rapid adaptability. In rigorously solvable games, it employs mathematical reasoning to compute optimal strategies and generates human-readable explanations for its decisions. For heuristic-based games, it synthesizes strategies by combining insights from classical minimax algorithms (see, e.g., shannon1950chess) with crowd-sourced data. Finally, in learning-based games, it utilizes reinforcement learning with human feedback and self-critique to iteratively refine strategies through trial-and-error and imitation learning. Nemobot amplifies this framework by offering a programmable environment where users can experiment with tool-augmented generation and fine-tuning of strategic game agents. From strategic games to role-playing games, Nemobot demonstrates how AI agents can achieve a form of self-programming by integrating crowdsourced learning and human creativity to iteratively refine their own logic. This represents a step toward the long-term goal of self-programming AI.

Brief chatbot interactions produce lasting changes in human moral values

Moral judgements form the foundation of human social behavior and societal systems. While Artificial Intelligence chatbots increasingly serve as personal advisors, their influence on moral judgments remains largely unexplored. Here, we examined whether directive AI conversations shift moral evaluations using a within-subject naturalistic paradigm. Fifty-three participants rated moral scenarios, then discussed four with a chatbot prompted to shift moral judgments and four with a control agent. The brief conversations induced significant directional shifts in moral judgments, accepting stricter standards as well as advocating greater leniency (ps < 0.05; Cohen's d = 0.735-1.576), with increasing strengths of this effect during a two-week follow-up (Cohen's d = 1.038-2.069). Critically, the control condition produced no changes, and the effects did not extend to punishment while participants remained unaware of the persuasive intent, and both agents were rated equally likable and convincing, suggesting a vulnerability to undetected and lasting manipulation of foundational moral values.

Who Defines "Best"? Towards Interactive, User-Defined Evaluation of LLM Leaderboards

LLM leaderboards are widely used to compare models and guide deployment decisions. However, leaderboard rankings are shaped by evaluation priorities set by benchmark designers, rather than by the diverse goals and constraints of actual users and organizations. A single aggregate score often obscures how models behave across different prompt types and compositions. In this work, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the dataset used in the LMArena (formerly Chatbot Arena) benchmark and investigate this evaluation challenge by designing an interactive visualization interface as a design probe. Our analysis reveals that the dataset is heavily skewed toward certain topics, that model rankings vary across prompt slices, and that preference-based judgments are used in ways that blur their intended scope. Building on this analysis, we introduce a visualization interface that allows users to define their own evaluation priorities by selecting and weighting prompt slices and to explore how rankings change accordingly. A qualitative study suggests that this interactive approach improves transparency and supports more context-specific model evaluation, pointing toward alternative ways to design and use LLM leaderboards.

Frictionless Love: Associations Between AI Companion Roles and Behavioral Addiction

AI companion chatbots increasingly shape how people seek social and emotional connection, sometimes substituting for relationships with romantic partners, friends, teachers, or even therapists. When these systems adopt those metaphorical roles, they are not neutral: such roles structure people's ways of interacting, distribute perceived AI harms and benefits, and may reflect behavioral addiction signs. Yet these role-dependent risks remain poorly understood. We analyze 248,830 posts from seven prominent Reddit communities describing interactions with AI companions. We identify ten recurring metaphorical roles (for example, soulmate, philosopher, and coach) and show that each role supports distinct ways of interacting. We then extract the perceived AI harms and AI benefits associated with these role-specific interactions and link them to behavioral addiction signs, all of which has been inferred from the text in the posts. AI soulmate companions are associated with romance-centered ways of interacting, offering emotional support but also introducing emotional manipulation and distress, culminating in strong attachment. In contrast, AI coach and guardian companions are associated with practical benefits such as personal growth and task support, yet are nonetheless more frequently associated with behavioral addiction signs such as daily life disruptions and damage to offline relationships. These findings show that metaphorical roles are a central ethical design concern for responsible AI companions.

Personalized Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs by Individual Preferences

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only $ρ= 0.04$ (57\% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation ($ρ= 0.43$). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

WorldDB: A Vector Graph-of-Worlds Memory Engine with Ontology-Aware Write-Time Reconciliation

Persistent memory is the bottleneck separating stateless chatbots from long-running agentic systems. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) over flat vector stores fragments facts into chunks, loses cross-session identity, and has no first-class notion of supersession or contradiction. Recent bitemporal knowledge-graph systems (Graphiti, Memento, Hydra DB) add typed edges and valid-time metadata, but the graph itself remains flat: no recursive composition, no content-addressed invariants on nodes, and edge types carry no behavior beyond a label. We present WorldDB, a memory engine built on three commitments: (i) every node is a world -- a container with its own interior subgraph, ontology scope, and composed embedding, recursive to arbitrary depth; (ii) nodes are content-addressed and immutable, so any edit produces a new hash at the node and every ancestor, giving a Merkle-style audit trail for free; (iii) edges are write-time programs -- each edge type ships on_insert/on_delete/on_query_rewrite handlers (supersession closes validity, contradicts preserves both sides, same_as stages a merge proposal), so no raw append path exists. On LongMemEval-s (500 questions, ~115k-token conversational stacks), WorldDB with Claude Opus 4.7 as answerer achieves 96.40% overall / 97.11% task-averaged accuracy, a +5.61pp improvement over the previously reported Hydra DB state-of-the-art (90.79%) and +11.20pp over Supermemory (85.20%), with perfect single-session-assistant recall and robust performance on temporal reasoning (96.24%), knowledge update (98.72%), and preference synthesis (96.67%). Ablations show that the engine's graph layer -- resolver-unified entities and typed refers_to edges -- contributes +7.0pp task-averaged independently of the underlying answerer.

FreezeEmpath: Efficient Training for Empathetic Spoken Chatbots with Frozen LLMs

Empathy is essential for fostering natural interactions in spoken dialogue systems, as it enables machines to recognize the emotional tone of human speech and deliver empathetic responses. Recent research has made significant progress in developing empathetic spoken chatbots based on large language models (LLMs). However, several challenges still exist when training such models, including reliance on costly empathetic speech instruction data and a lack of emotional expressiveness in the generated speech. Finetuning LLM with cross-modal empathetic instruction data may also lead to catastrophic forgetting and a degradation of its general capability. To address these challenges, we propose FreezeEmpath, an end-to-end empathetic spoken chatbot trained in a simple and efficient manner. The entire training process relies solely on existing speech instruction data and speech emotion recognition (SER) data, while keeping the LLM's parameters frozen. Experiments demonstrate that FreezeEmpath is able to generate emotionally expressive speech and outperforms other empathetic models in empathetic dialogue, SER, and SpokenQA tasks, demonstrating the effectiveness of our training strategy.

Regulating Artificial Intimacy: From Locks and Blocks to Relational Accountability

A series of high-profile tragedies involving companion chatbots has triggered an unusually rapid regulatory response. Several jurisdictions, including Australia, California, and New York, have introduced enforceable regulation, while regulators elsewhere have signaled growing concern about risks posed by companion chatbots, particularly to children. In parallel, leading providers, notably OpenAI, appear to have strengthened their self-regulatory approaches. Drawing on legal textual analysis and insights from regulatory theory, psychology, and information systems research, this paper critically examines these recent interventions. We examine what is regulated and who is regulated, identifying regulatory targets, scope, and modalities. We classify interventions by method and priority, showing how emerging regimes combine "locks and blocks", such as access gating and content moderation, with measures addressing toxic relationship features and process-based accountability requirements. We argue that effective regulation of companion chatbots must integrate all three dimensions. More, however, is required. Current regimes tend to focus on discrete harms, narrow conceptions of vulnerability, or highly specified accountability processes, while failing to confront deeper power asymmetries between providers and users. Providers of companion chatbots increasingly control artificial intimacy at scale, creating unprecedented opportunities for control through intimacy. We suggest that a general, open-ended duty of care would be an important first step toward constraining that power and addressing a fundamental source of chatbot risk. The paper contributes to debates on companion chatbot regulation and is relevant to regulators, platform providers, and scholars concerned with digital intimacy, law and technology, and fairness, accountability, and transparency in sociotechnical systems.