Empirical investigation quantifies emotional degradation in large language models, indicating implications for AI systems.
Version 2.0 (Fully rebuilt empirical study) This version presents a fully reconstructed and standardized empirical investigation of Algorithmic Affective Blunting (AAB)—a dose-dependent degradation of affective and interpretative integration in large language models under sustained semantic stress. Building upon and superseding earlier exploratory analyses, Version 2.0 is based on a single open-weight model (Mistral-7B-Instruct) evaluated under fixed decoding settings. This design enables precise isolation of stress-induced effects without cross-model or cross-decoding confounds. The study introduces a calibrated experimental protocol (Hierarchical Hermeneutic Stress Protocol; HHSP), a validated ordinal outcome measure (Affective Degradation Index; ADI), and a complete reproducibility package. The results demonstrate a monotonic Collapse Curve in affective interpretation: as semantic load accumulates, failures emerge first in emotional–contextual integration rather than in surface-level linguistic competence. This phenomenon is shown to be systematic, measurable, and reproducible at the rater level. Exploratory extensions (Phase 4) provide non-canonical robustness probes under matched Base/Instruct architectures and are explicitly distinguished from the core empirical evidence. The “affective integrator” is treated as a functional descriptor rather than a mechanistic claim, and Phase-4 results are presented as stress tests rather than new empirical confirmation. Version 2.0 supersedes all prior versions and constitutes the primary empirical reference for the AAB framework. It provides a reproducible benchmark for interpretative degradation and emotional robustness in large language models, with direct implications for affect-sensitive AI systems such as conversational agents, counseling tools, and human–AI interaction research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R. M. Kim (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: