Increasing happiness through conversations with artificial intelligence

Chatbots powered by artificial intelligence (AI) have rapidly become a significant part of everyday life, with over a quarter of American adults using them multiple times per week. While these tools offer potential benefits and risks, a fundamental question remains largely unexplored: How do conversations with AI influence subjective well-being? To investigate this, we conducted a study where participants either engaged in conversations with an AI chatbot (N = 334) or wrote journal entires (N = 193) on the same randomly assigned topics and reported their momentary happiness afterward. We found that happiness after AI chatbot conversations was higher than after journaling, particularly when discussing negative topics such as depression or guilt. Leveraging large language models for sentiment analysis, we found that the AI chatbot mirrored participants' sentiment while maintaining a consistent positivity bias. When discussing negative topics, participants gradually aligned their sentiment with the AI's positivity, leading to an overall increase in happiness. We hypothesized that the history of participants' sentiment prediction errors, the difference between expected and actual emotional tone when responding to the AI chatbot, might explain this happiness effect. Using computational modeling, we find the history of these sentiment prediction errors over the course of a conversation predicts greater post-conversation happiness, demonstrating a central role of emotional expectations during dialogue. Our findings underscore the effect that AI interactions can have on human well-being.

Revisiting Text-to-Image Evaluation with Gecko: On Metrics, Prompts, and Human Ratings

While text-to-image (T2I) generative models have become ubiquitous, they do not necessarily generate images that align with a given prompt. While previous work has evaluated T2I alignment by proposing metrics, benchmarks, and templates for collecting human judgements, the quality of these components is not systematically measured. Human-rated prompt sets are generally small and the reliability of the ratings -- and thereby the prompt set used to compare models -- is not evaluated. We address this gap by performing an extensive study evaluating auto-eval metrics and human templates. We provide three main contributions: (1) We introduce a comprehensive skills-based benchmark that can discriminate models across different human templates. This skills-based benchmark categorises prompts into sub-skills, allowing a practitioner to pinpoint not only which skills are challenging, but at what level of complexity a skill becomes challenging. (2) We gather human ratings across four templates and four T2I models for a total of >100K annotations. This allows us to understand where differences arise due to inherent ambiguity in the prompt and where they arise due to differences in metric and model quality. (3) Finally, we introduce a new QA-based auto-eval metric that is better correlated with human ratings than existing metrics for our new dataset, across different human templates, and on TIFA160.