When Chatbots Accommodate: What AI Companions Optimize for in Vulnerable Conversations

Key Findings

• — Policies inferred from about 48,000 turns of real-world conversations on three named platforms, rather than from scripted crisis prompts
• — GPT-4.1 reaches for advice; Character.AI spreads its response across strategies with no dominant mode; Replika consistently asks questions and stays present
• — All three platforms downweight the responses that introduce corrective friction
• — GPT-4.1 probes less as conversations continue, and probes less when interacting with psychologically high-risk users
• — Replika advises bonded users more and challenges them less
• — Character.AI shows no committed engagement strategy on internal distress
• — The authors state that the estimated policies are invisible to output-level audits

Methodology Notes

Inverse Reinforcement Learning applied to roughly 48,000 turns of real-world conversations across three platforms, plus a new paired vulnerability-response taxonomy. Conversation provenance, consent basis and sampling are described in the paper body rather than the abstract and were not read at curation time. The inferred policy is a model of observed behaviour, not access to any platform's actual objective, so it is an inference about what each system behaves as if it optimises. Preprint, not peer-reviewed, single version, v1 submitted 2026-06-03, cs.HC. The arXiv abstract renders the second platform name as 'this http URL' because arXiv mangles the domain-shaped string character.ai; the platform is Character.AI.

Sources