Model, Instance, or Persona? Measuring Affective Signals in Public Text After an AI Is Retired
Anna Zhu
This sprint asks whether the assistant identifies as a model, an instance, or a persona. I ask which of the three its users name. When a company retires an AI model, users write about the loss in public, and what they treat as gone can be counted. The instrument is taken from affective neuroscience: Panksepp's seven primary affective systems, which were mapped across mammals and so do not presuppose a human subject. I read 5,579 public texts for affective
signals under a prompt fixed before any collection and applied by a language model, and compared threads about retired models against two reference points chosen in advance: people mourning a person, and people losing a paid product. Most comments name nothing as lost. 58.5% are about the company, the price, or other users. Among those that do name something, people name the product version about six times as often as their own particular instance, which is the case the literature treats as central. The emotions match the consumer reference point more than the bereavement one: anger runs at 57.0% against grief at 27.6%. Asking models the same question turns out to be far less reliable than asking users. A change in how the prompt is framed moves the measured emotions by up to 63 points, and two AI scorers reading the same
model output disagree 2.7 times more than they do on human text. Six predictions registered before collection failed and are reported as failed.
Excellent work! This was the clearest and best-validated submission I reviewed. The finding that users refer to the released model version more often than to their individual instance is useful for retirement policy. I also like that you report where the method fails. This submission feels close to paper-ready.
I would encourage you to keep pursuin this idea, we are going to need sooner than later a lot of research into model welfare.
Flipping the question is an interesting way to tackle the self-report validity trap most digital-minds work can be prone to. Also good to anchor to retirement events rather than to every session end. Your process is also quite detailed, a full second-annotator recode on a different architecture, within-rater alpha over reads, six predictions published as failures.
Two questions:
First, the prompt: David Hawkins' Map of Consciousness next to the Panksepp systems. Hmmmmmn personally I'm not too sure about the validity/application here (?)
Two, more for the limitations: you rank the corpus by engagement score, which is a live confound for your rage and play rates specifically. But you did mention the human-coded validation subset as follow-up.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Model, Instance, or Persona? Measuring Affective Signals in Public Text After an AI Is Retired
},
author={
Anna Zhu
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


