Simulating Psychological Risks in Human-AI Interactions: Real-Case Informed Modeling of AI-Induced Addiction, Anorexia, Depression, Homicide, Psychosis, and Suicide
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, their potential to exacerbate or trigger severe psychological harms remains poorly understood and inadequately tested. This paper presents a proactive methodology for systematically exploring psychological risks in simulated human-AI interactions based on documented real-world cases involving AI-induced or AI-exacerbated addiction, anorexia, depression, homicide, psychosis, and suicide. We collected and analyzed 18 reported real-world cases where AI interactions contributed to severe psychological outcomes. From these cases, we developed a process to extract harmful interaction patterns and assess potential risks through 2,160 simulated scenarios using clinical staging models. We tested four major LLMs across multi-turn conversations to identify where psychological risks emerge: which harm domains, conversation stages, and contexts reveal system vulnerabilities. Through the analysis of 157,054 simulated conversation turns, we identify critical gaps in detecting psychological distress, responding appropriately to vulnerable users, and preventing harm escalation. Regression analysis reveals variability across persona types: LLMs tend to perform worse with elderly users but better with low- and middle-income groups compared to high-income groups. Clustering analysis of harmful responses reveals a taxonomy of fifteen distinct failure patterns organized into four categories of AI-enabled harm. This work contributes a novel methodology for identifying psychological risks, empirical evidence of common failure modes across systems, and a classification of harmful AI response patterns in high-stakes human-AI interactions.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 10.
10 papers.
- 2026Characterizing Delusional Spirals through Human-LLM Chat Logscited by 23
- 2026Personalization Increases Affective Alignment but Has Role-Dependent Effects on Epistemic Independence in LLMscited by 5
- 2026"Death" of a Chatbot: Investigating and Designing Toward Psychologically Safe Endings for Human-AI Relationshipscited by 4
- 2026PatientHub: A Unified Framework for Patient Simulationcited by 4
- 2026CIRCLE: A Framework for Evaluating AI from a Real-World Lenscited by 2
- 2026Benchmarking the Safety of Large Language Models for Robotic Health Attendant Controlcited by 1
- 2026Long-Term Simulation Exposes Cognitive-Developmental Risks in AI Companionscited by 1
- 2026Examining Human-Like Behaviors in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Model Behaviors, User Factors, and System Promptscited by 0
- 2026Whose Assessment of Distress? Community Perspectives and LLM Alignment on Well-Being Postscited by 0
- 2026Ownership in AI-Assisted Everyday Taskscited by 0
- 2026Ownership in AI-Assisted Everyday Tasks17 Sep 2026
- 2026Whose Assessment of Distress? Community Perspectives and LLM Alignment on Well-Being Posts29 Aug 2026
- 2026Long-Term Simulation Exposes Cognitive-Developmental Risks in AI Companions24 Jun 2026
- 2026Examining Human-Like Behaviors in LLMs: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Model Behaviors, User Factors, and System Prompts7 May 2026
- 2026Benchmarking the Safety of Large Language Models for Robotic Health Attendant Control29 Apr 2026
- 2026Characterizing Delusional Spirals through Human-LLM Chat Logs17 Mar 2026
- 2026CIRCLE: A Framework for Evaluating AI from a Real-World Lens27 Feb 2026
- 2026PatientHub: A Unified Framework for Patient Simulation12 Feb 2026
- 2026"Death" of a Chatbot: Investigating and Designing Toward Psychologically Safe Endings for Human-AI Relationships6 Feb 2026
- 2026Personalization Increases Affective Alignment but Has Role-Dependent Effects on Epistemic Independence in LLMs3 Feb 2026