Backend
Love for Believable AI: Artificial Partiality and Relationship Persistence as an Engineerable Stance
arXiv cs.HC0 views
arXiv:2610.09895v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study a behavioral mechanism for artificial partiality in conversational agents. The paper reports no human-subjects data and makes no claim about attachment, trust, perceived mind, or machine interiority. Partiality has two components: caring, defined as allocation of a finite interaction surplus above a guaranteed per-user service floor, and particularity, defined as a per-user state estimate accumulated from relationship history on fixed inference machinery. We implement both as a persistence layer over one open-weight base model and evaluate them on constructed multi-session relationships with known hidden-state schedules. A four-channel divergence compares known-user and stranger conditions on identical probes with paired generation seeds; the stranger prompt is not length-matched, and one channel (initiative) is an allocator output rather than generated behavior. The full mechanism reproduces the ordinal shape, but not the magnitude, of an analytically specified curve and is the only arm satisfying the protocol-defined joint signature on the calibrated battery. The initial mechanism fails probe-quality equivalence because relationship content reduces topical relevance. A guarded revision satisfies equivalence on the calibrated battery but not on a second battery not used in calibration, where it scores higher than the unmodified baseline. On that second battery, the specificity margin is 0.0198, below the 0.02 protocol threshold. The paired mean right-user--wrong-user estimation-accuracy contrast is 0.375 but is not positive in every run. The mechanism is therefore a candidate for a later perception study, not evidence that users perceive love. The versioned protocol record is not independently time-stamped and is not described as a preregistration. Ethical constraints include a stranger-treatment floor, a bounded surplus, disclosure, and de-intensification.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.09895PreviousA Scoping Review and Experimental Study on Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for Human-Robot CollaborationNextA Scale For Value Alignment In Human-AI Interaction
Related posts

Copilot Fusion Takes Local Models, and the Offline Boundary Is Somewhere Else
0dev.to AI

A CTO Checklist for Evaluating AI Features Before Production Release
0dev.to AI
Humanoid Robot Demo Makes the Case for Keeping the Human Form
0dev.to AI
Supabase anon key vs service role key: what each one opens
0dev.to Security
After the eMudhra CA compromise: audit your own TLS stack in 30 minutes
0dev.to Security
Exposed Building Automation Services: Bavaria and DACH
0dev.to Security