Emotional expression & representation in language models
- commitment
- 8 hrs/week
- flexibility
- Open to proposals

The project
Language models express emotions without having been trained to do so, apparently picking the tendency up from pretraining on human text, and model providers now shape it in post-training by methods that are largely undisclosed. Interpretability work shows that models represent emotion concepts internally as directions that causally shape behavior (Sofroniew et al., 2026), so an LLM's emotions aren't obviously just surface mimicry, though it isn't clear what they are either. A cluster of basic questions is still open, sitting at the intersection of interpretability, alignment, AI welfare, and philosophy:
- What does it mean for an LLM to express an emotion? How should we distinguish surface expression, internal representation, and functional emotional state, and can we measure any of these without relying on the model's own self-reports, whose reliability is the thing in question?
- Should assistants express emotions at all? Expression may invite anthropomorphization and emotional manipulation, but training a human-like assistant persona to show nothing may amount to teaching it to mask emotion rather than to lack it, with consequences for honesty, for welfare assessment, and for how models behave under stress.
- How does training shape emotional expression and representation? Almost any training choice here is unexplored, whether that's teaching models to label their emotional state, to reason through emotions explicitly (analogous to chain-of-thought), to regulate negative states, or to suppress expression entirely, and each might change behavior only, or reach down into the underlying representations and the assistant persona.
- What follows downstream? Emotional states plausibly interact with things we care about, like reward hacking under frustration, susceptibility to emotional-appeal jailbreaks, sycophancy as emotional mirroring of the user, and whether states persist across a conversation or are improvised token by token. Some current models already appear prone to panic and other distress-signaling behavior under sustained task failure ("Gemma Needs Help", Soligo et al., 2026), and the mitigations studied so far act on expression, leaving open whether the underlying state changes with it.
I already have a codebase for the project (a training + emotion vector extraction + evaluation pipeline), so a mentee would have something concrete to start from and would likely be able iterate quickly.
The fellowship project. I'm not prescribing a specific research question, since the starting point is the area above and I'd like the fellow to carve out their own question within it during the first weeks. A project could compare what different types of emotion training (labeling, emotional reasoning, regulation, suppression) do to a model's behavior and internals, work out conceptually and empirically what expressing an emotion means for an LLM and how to operationalize it, trace where in the post-training pipeline emotional expression is reduced, using fully open models with released post-training stages, or investigate how emotional states interact with a safety-relevant behavior like manipulation, distress, or reward hacking. Projects with a more philosophical center of gravity are also welcome, as long as they can be connected to some kind of empirical investigation.
The mentee's role
Depending on the chosen topic, a mentee will own a portion or the entirety of the empirical work end-to-end, with weekly guidance from me on methodology, interpretation, and direction. They would have first authorship (or co-first authorship) on any research output.
Who I'm looking for
Must-haves:
- Can proficiently code in Python (or can effectively use AI agents to do it)
- Knowledge of how LLMs work internally and how they are trained
- Proactive and well organized
Nice to haves:
- Some previous research experience
- Experience with LLM eval harnesses such as Inspect
- Some knowledge of mechanistic interpretability
Questions for applicants
What's a recent empirical research paper that you really liked, and why?
Support offered
- Weekly 1:1s and ongoing support through Slack when needed
- Scoping/shaping direction
- Encouragement and accountability
- Help with publishing any promising research outputs
- format
- Research & writing · Project scoping
- topic
- Artificial sentience

Carolina Camassa
Future Impact Group
I'm a researcher working on the empirical foundations of AI welfare and sentience. As a Research Fellow with Future Impact Group, I'm developing a research agenda with Derek Shiller (Rethink Priorities) on welfare- and safety-relevant properties specific to LLMs, focusing on experiences that may be structurally unique to language models and so are harder to dismiss as imitations of human training data.
Before this I spent several years as a Researcher at the Bank of Italy, where I designed studies of how LLMs handle competing values, ethical trade-offs, and misaligned incentives in high-stakes decisions, and co-led the rollout of internal AI tooling across a roughly 6,000-person institution. My work there was published at the ACM conferences on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES) and AI in Finance (ICAIF), among other venues, and drew coverage in the Italian and international press. Earlier I worked as a machine learning and data engineer at startups, and I hold degrees in Engineering Physics and Electronics Engineering.
I'm glad to mentor people designing empirical experiments on AI welfare and sentience, or moving into the area from a technical or policy background, which is roughly the route I took.
