The psychophysics of affect in large language models
arXiv:2610.40985v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Good decisions often require considering how outcomes will feel. Yet large language models (LLMs) increasingly enter decision workflows, despite little being known about how they map outcomes to feelings or use those mappings in choice. We tested how LLMs anticipated gambling or stock-trading outcomes would feel and whether they incorporated these ratings into choice. When outcomes were rated in isolation, ratings exhibited diminishing sensitivity
Read original sourceSource record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2610.40985. Source account: arXiv:2610.40985v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Good decisions often require considering how outcomes will feel. Yet large language models (LLMs) increasingly enter decision workflows, despite little being known about how they map outcomes to feelings or use those mappings in choice. We tested how LLMs anticipated gambling or stock-trading outcomes would feel and whether they incorporated these ratings into choice. When outcomes were rated in isolation, ratings exhibited diminishing sensitivity
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “DS@GT ARC at CheckThat! 2026: A Verdict-Anchored Pipeline for Generating Fact-Checking Articles” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026); “Same Origin, Different Verdicts: Text Production Conditions Confound Machine-Generated Text Detection in Russian” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.