How a Chatbot's Response Style Shapes a Classroom: A Multi-Agent Simulation of Students Consulting AI — AI agent app

Rin Tamai, Yuya Dan/How a Chatbot's Response Style Shapes a Classroom: A Multi-Agent Simulation of Students Consulting AIUnknown

LLM chatbots are increasingly used as everyday confidants; tuned to satisfy users, they can answer with excessive empathy and affirmation that may foster dependence. How the states and relationships of many users co-evolve when they keep consulting an AI is hard to observe in real settings. We build a virtual classroom in which 20 student agents interact through rule-based chats, quarrels and consultations with friends and, when stressed, may instead consult a counselor AI (Gemini 2.5 Flash) given one of six style prompts (affirming, listening, solution-oriented, reality-redirecting, inciting, blaming). A second LLM call converts each exchange into updates of five state variables (stress, happiness, self-reliance, sociability, AI dependence) without seeing the style prompt. We compare the seven conditions, including a no-AI control, over 15 days in three classrooms, over 50 days, and under a lower threshold. Because the original 50-day runs did not share one initial classroom, we re-ran all seven 50-day conditions from one stored classroom with full logging (153 consultations, no failed API call). The re-run reproduces the ordering of the original runs: affirming and inciting prompts raised AI dependence to 0.55 and 0.63 (control 0.11), lowered self-reliance and left 7 and 14 of 20 agents non-attending (control 2); blaming and reality-redirecting prompts eliminated AI dependence but produced the highest stress; only the solution-oriented prompt matched or bettered the control on every indicator. The logs expose the mechanisms: a near-deterministic loop between a fixed "dependence" consultation text and the evaluator's updates, displacement of friend confidings by AI consultations, and single rejecting consultations never revisited, not more quarrels. All quantities are simulation state variables from single runs; results are descriptive and do not measure human effects.

agent app

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed6h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

55 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

55Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 0 days observed0 not enough history

snapshots

not enough history

Repository activity · 0 days observednot enough history from pushed_at

inactivepushed

not enough history

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 55/100

Below average

Alternatives

OccuReward: LLM-Guided Occupant-Centric Reward Shaping for Demographic Equity in Grid-Interactive Buildings

0 · agent app

The Impact of GenAI on the Future of Requirements Engineering

0 · agent app

How do LLMs Evaluate Perceived Moral Agency? Investigating Moral Decision-Making in Human-Artificial Agents Interactions

0 · agent app

Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents

0 · agent app

55 Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler6h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing