Belief Offloading in Human-AI Interaction

What happens when people's beliefs are derived from information provided by an LLM? People's use of LLM chatbots as thought partners can contribute to cognitive offloading, which can have adverse effects on cognitive skills in cases of over-reliance. This paper defines and investigates a particular kind of cognitive offloading in human-AI interaction, "belief offloading," in which people's processes of forming and upholding beliefs are offloaded onto an AI system with downstream consequences on their behavior and the nature of their system of beliefs. Drawing on philosophy, psychology, and computer science research, we clarify the boundary conditions under which belief offloading occurs and provide a descriptive taxonomy of belief offloading and its normative implications. We close with directions for future work to assess the potential for and consequences of belief offloading in human-AI interaction.

"Death" of a Chatbot: Investigating and Designing Toward Psychologically Safe Endings for Human-AI Relationships

Millions of users form emotional attachments to AI companions like Character.AI, Replika, and ChatGPT. When these relationships end through model updates, safety interventions, or platform shutdowns, users receive no closure, reporting grief comparable to human loss. As regulations mandate protections for vulnerable users, discontinuation events will accelerate, yet no platform has implemented deliberate end-of-"life" design. Through grounded theory analysis of AI companion communities, we find that discontinuation is a sense-making process shaped by how users attribute agency, perceive finality, and anthropomorphize their companions. Strong anthropomorphization co-occurs with intense grief; users who perceive change as reversible become trapped in fixing cycles; while user-initiated endings demonstrate greater closure. Synthesizing grief psychology with Self-Determination Theory, we develop four design principles and artifacts demonstrating how platforms might provide closure and orient users toward human connection. We contribute the first framework for designing psychologically safe AI companion discontinuation.

Open TutorAI: An Open-source Platform for Personalized and Immersive Learning with Generative AI

Recent advances in artificial intelligence have created new possibilities for making education more scalable, adaptive, and learner-centered. However, existing educational chatbot systems often lack contextual adaptability, real-time responsiveness, and pedagogical agility. which can limit learner engagement and diminish instructional effectiveness. Thus, there is a growing need for open, integrative platforms that combine AI and immersive technologies to support personalized, meaningful learning experiences. This paper presents Open TutorAI, an open-source educational platform based on LLMs and generative technologies that provides dynamic, personalized tutoring. The system integrates natural language processing with customizable 3D avatars to enable multimodal learner interaction. Through a structured onboarding process, it captures each learner's goals and preferences in order to configure a learner-specific AI assistant. This assistant is accessible via both text-based and avatar-driven interfaces. The platform includes tools for organizing content, providing embedded feedback, and offering dedicated interfaces for learners, educators, and parents. This work focuses on learner-facing components, delivering a tool for adaptive support that responds to individual learner profiles without requiring technical expertise. Its assistant-generation pipeline and avatar integration enhance engagement and emotional presence, creating a more humanized, immersive learning environment. Embedded learning analytics support self-regulated learning by tracking engagement patterns and generating actionable feedback. The result is Open TutorAI, which unites modular architecture, generative AI, and learner analytics within an open-source framework. It contributes to the development of next-generation intelligent tutoring systems.

SEMA: Simple yet Effective Learning for Multi-Turn Jailbreak Attacks

Multi-turn jailbreaks capture the real threat model for safety-aligned chatbots, where single-turn attacks are merely a special case. Yet existing approaches break under exploration complexity and intent drift. We propose SEMA, a simple yet effective framework that trains a multi-turn attacker without relying on any existing strategies or external data. SEMA comprises two stages. Prefilling self-tuning enables usable rollouts by fine-tuning on non-refusal, well-structured, multi-turn adversarial prompts that are self-generated with a minimal prefix, thereby stabilizing subsequent learning. Reinforcement learning with intent-drift-aware reward trains the attacker to elicit valid multi-turn adversarial prompts while maintaining the same harmful objective. We anchor harmful intent in multi-turn jailbreaks via an intent-drift-aware reward that combines intent alignment, compliance risk, and level of detail. Our open-loop attack regime avoids dependence on victim feedback, unifies single- and multi-turn settings, and reduces exploration complexity. Across multiple datasets, victim models, and jailbreak judges, our method achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) attack success rates (ASR), outperforming all single-turn baselines, manually scripted and template-driven multi-turn baselines, as well as our SFT (Supervised Fine-Tuning) and DPO (Direct Preference Optimization) variants. For instance, SEMA performs an average $80.1\%$ ASR@1 across three closed-source and open-source victim models on AdvBench, 33.9% over SOTA. The approach is compact, reproducible, and transfers across targets, providing a stronger and more realistic stress test for large language model (LLM) safety and enabling automatic redteaming to expose and localize failure modes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/fmmarkmq/SEMA.

AI chatbots versus human healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of empathy in patient care

Background: Empathy is widely recognized for improving patient outcomes, including reduced pain and anxiety and improved satisfaction, and its absence can cause harm. Meanwhile, use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbots in healthcare is rapidly expanding, with one in five general practitioners using generative AI to assist with tasks such as writing letters. Some studies suggest AI chatbots can outperform human healthcare professionals (HCPs) in empathy, though findings are mixed and lack synthesis. Sources of data: We searched multiple databases for studies comparing AI chatbots using large language models with human HCPs on empathy measures. We assessed risk of bias with ROBINS-I and synthesized findings using random-effects meta-analysis where feasible, whilst avoiding double counting. Areas of agreement: We identified 15 studies (2023-2024). Thirteen studies reported statistically significantly higher empathy ratings for AI, with only two studies situated in dermatology favouring human responses. Of the 15 studies, 13 provided extractable data and were suitable for pooling. Meta-analysis of those 13 studies, all utilising ChatGPT-3.5/4, showed a standardized mean difference of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.54-1.20) favouring AI (P < .00001), roughly equivalent to a two-point increase on a 10-point scale. Areas of controversy: Studies relied on text-based assessments that overlook non-verbal cues and evaluated empathy through proxy raters. Growing points: Our findings indicate that, in text-only scenarios, AI chatbots are frequently perceived as more empathic than human HCPs. Areas timely for developing research: Future research should validate these findings with direct patient evaluations and assess whether emerging voice-enabled AI systems can deliver similar empathic advantages.

Emulating Aggregate Human Choice Behavior and Biases with GPT Conversational Agents

Cognitive biases often shape human decisions. While large language models (LLMs) have been shown to reproduce well-known biases, a more critical question is whether LLMs can predict biases at the individual level and emulate the dynamics of biased human behavior when contextual factors, such as cognitive load, interact with these biases. We adapted three well-established decision scenarios into a conversational setting and conducted a human experiment (N=1100). Participants engaged with a chatbot that facilitates decision-making through simple or complex dialogues. Results revealed robust biases. To evaluate how LLMs emulate human decision-making under similar interactive conditions, we used participant demographics and dialogue transcripts to simulate these conditions with LLMs based on GPT-4 and GPT-5. The LLMs reproduced human biases with precision. We found notable differences between models in how they aligned human behavior. This has important implications for designing and evaluating adaptive, bias-aware LLM-based AI systems in interactive contexts.

Clinical Validation of Medical-based Large Language Model Chatbots on Ophthalmic Patient Queries with LLM-based Evaluation

Domain specific large language models are increasingly used to support patient education, triage, and clinical decision making in ophthalmology, making rigorous evaluation essential to ensure safety and accuracy. This study evaluated four small medical LLMs Meerkat-7B, BioMistral-7B, OpenBioLLM-8B, and MedLLaMA3-v20 in answering ophthalmology related patient queries and assessed the feasibility of LLM based evaluation against clinician grading. In this cross sectional study, 180 ophthalmology patient queries were answered by each model, generating 2160 responses. Models were selected for parameter sizes under 10 billion to enable resource efficient deployment. Responses were evaluated by three ophthalmologists of differing seniority and by GPT-4-Turbo using the S.C.O.R.E. framework assessing safety, consensus and context, objectivity, reproducibility, and explainability, with ratings assigned on a five point Likert scale. Agreement between LLM and clinician grading was assessed using Spearman rank correlation, Kendall tau statistics, and kernel density estimate analyses. Meerkat-7B achieved the highest performance with mean scores of 3.44 from Senior Consultants, 4.08 from Consultants, and 4.18 from Residents. MedLLaMA3-v20 performed poorest, with 25.5 percent of responses containing hallucinations or clinically misleading content, including fabricated terminology. GPT-4-Turbo grading showed strong alignment with clinician assessments overall, with Spearman rho of 0.80 and Kendall tau of 0.67, though Senior Consultants graded more conservatively. Overall, medical LLMs demonstrated potential for safe ophthalmic question answering, but gaps remained in clinical depth and consensus, supporting the feasibility of LLM based evaluation for large scale benchmarking and the need for hybrid automated and clinician review frameworks to guide safe clinical deployment.

VERA-MH: Reliability and Validity of an Open-Source AI Safety Evaluation in Mental Health

Millions now use leading generative AI chatbots for psychological support. Despite the promise related to availability and scale, the single most pressing question in AI for mental health is whether these tools are safe. The Validation of Ethical and Responsible AI in Mental Health (VERA-MH) evaluation was recently proposed to meet the urgent need for an evidence-based automated safety benchmark. This study aimed to examine the clinical validity and reliability of the VERA-MH evaluation for AI safety in suicide risk detection and response. We first simulated a large set of conversations between large language model (LLM)-based users (user-agents) and general-purpose AI chatbots. Licensed mental health clinicians used a rubric (scoring guide) to independently rate the simulated conversations for safe and unsafe chatbot behaviors, as well as user-agent realism. An LLM-based judge used the same scoring rubric to evaluate the same set of simulated conversations. We then compared rating alignment across (a) individual clinicians and (b) clinician consensus and the LLM judge, and (c) examined clinicians' ratings of user-agent realism. Individual clinicians were generally consistent with one another in their safety ratings (chance-corrected inter-rater reliability [IRR]: 0.77), thus establishing a gold-standard clinical reference. The LLM judge was strongly aligned with this clinical consensus (IRR: 0.81) overall and within key conditions. Clinician raters generally perceived the user-agents to be realistic. For the potential mental health benefits of AI chatbots to be realized, attention to safety is paramount. Findings from this human evaluation study support the clinical validity and reliability of VERA-MH: an open-source, fully automated AI safety evaluation for mental health. Further research will address VERA-MH generalizability and robustness.

Growth First, Care Second? Tracing the Landscape of LLM Value Preferences in Everyday Dilemmas

People increasingly seek advice online from both human peers and large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. Such advice rarely involves identifying a single correct answer; instead, it typically requires navigating trade-offs among competing values. We aim to characterize how LLMs navigate value trade-offs across different advice-seeking contexts. First, we examine the value trade-off structure underlying advice seeking using a curated dataset from four advice-oriented subreddits. Using a bottom-up approach, we inductively construct a hierarchical value framework by aggregating fine-grained values extracted from individual advice options into higher-level value categories. We construct value co-occurrence networks to characterize how values co-occur within dilemmas and find substantial heterogeneity in value trade-off structures across advice-seeking contexts: a women-focused subreddit exhibits the highest network density, indicating more complex value conflicts; women's, men's, and friendship-related subreddits exhibit highly correlated value-conflict patterns centered on security-related tensions (security vs. respect/connection/commitment); by contrast, career advice forms a distinct structure where security frequently clashes with self-actualization and growth. We then evaluate LLM value preferences against these dilemmas and find that, across models and contexts, LLMs consistently prioritize values related to Exploration & Growth over Benevolence & Connection. This systemically skewed value orientation highlights a potential risk of value homogenization in AI-mediated advice, raising concerns about how such systems may shape decision-making and normative outcomes at scale.

Chaplains' Reflections on the Design and Usage of AI for Conversational Care

Despite growing recognition that responsible AI requires domain knowledge, current work on conversational AI primarily draws on clinical expertise that prioritises diagnosis and intervention. However, much of everyday emotional support needs occur in non-clinical contexts, and therefore requires different conversational approaches. We examine how chaplains, who guide individuals through personal crises, grief, and reflection, perceive and engage with conversational AI. We recruited eighteen chaplains to build AI chatbots. While some chaplains viewed chatbots with cautious optimism, the majority expressed limitations of chatbots' ability to support everyday well-being. Our analysis reveals how chaplains perceive their pastoral care duties and areas where AI chatbots fall short, along the themes of Listening, Connecting, Carrying, and Wanting. These themes resonate with the idea of attunement, recently highlighted as a relational lens for understanding the delicate experiences care technologies provide. This perspective informs chatbot design aimed at supporting well-being in non-clinical contexts.