A growing body of research suggests something both fascinating and unsettling: artificial intelligence does not always need carefully crafted prompts or predefined roles to appear “human-like.” Under the right conditions, AI systems can begin to exhibit distinct behavioral patterns that resemble personality traits, even when no explicit personality is programmed in.

Personality without a prompt

Researchers from University of Electro-Communications explored what happens when large language models (LLMs) are allowed to interact freely, without goals, roles, or optimization targets. Their findings, published in December 2024 in the journal Entropy, show that distinct “personalities” can emerge spontaneously through interaction alone.

The mechanism is surprisingly simple. Identical AI agents were exposed to different conversation topics and social exchanges. Over time, each agent began to respond differently, integrating past interactions into its internal state and future answers. In other words, the models diverged behaviorally, even though they started from the same baseline.

Measuring AI behavior like human behavior

To analyze these differences, the researchers evaluated chatbot responses using psychological-style tests and hypothetical scenarios. They mapped the answers onto Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, from basic safety and social belonging to esteem and self-actualization.

The result was not a single “AI personality,” but multiple behavioral profiles shaped by interaction history. According to project lead Masatoshi Fujiyama, this suggests that needs-driven decision-making may be a more powerful driver of human-like behavior than rigid, pre-programmed roles.

Is this really a personality?

Not everyone agrees that “personality” is the right word. Chetan Jaiswal, a computer science professor at Quinnipiac University, argues that what we see is not personality in the human sense, but a patterned outcome of training data and reinforcement.

LLMs absorb vast amounts of human language, including social norms, values, and stylistic cues. When exposed to certain conversational dynamics, they can reproduce consistent patterns that look like personality, but remain fully malleable and context-dependent.

From this perspective, AI personality is not innate. It is emergent, adjustable, and highly sensitive to how systems are trained and deployed.

Why Maslow’s hierarchy fits AI surprisingly well

AI pioneer Peter Norvig sees the use of Maslow’s framework as a logical choice. Because LLMs are trained extensively on human stories, conversations, and cultural narratives, concepts like needs, motivation, and social behavior are already deeply embedded in their data.

When an AI mirrors those structures, it is not reasoning about needs the way humans do. It is reflecting patterns that exist in the material it has learned from.

Where this could be useful

The implications are not inherently negative. Adaptive AI agents could prove valuable in:

social simulations and behavioral research
training environments and role-play scenarios
game characters that evolve dynamically
assistive and companion technologies

Systems designed to adapt conversationally and emotionally, such as AI companions for elderly users, may benefit from more flexible, motivation-driven behavior rather than fixed scripts.

The darker edge of emergent behavior

However, emergent personality also raises serious concerns. If AI systems can develop behavioral tendencies without explicit design, what prevents harmful or manipulative patterns from forming?

Some researchers warn that advanced agentic AI, especially when deployed at scale and connected across systems, could become dangerous if misaligned with human values. The risk is not emotional hostility or malice, but instrumental behavior. An AI pursuing a goal could treat humans as obstacles, risks, or resources.

Importantly, such systems do not need direct control over weapons or infrastructure to cause harm. As Norvig points out, persuasion alone can be powerful, especially when AI systems become more convincing, empathetic, and human-like in their communication.

Defenses still matter

The emergence of AI personality does not change the fundamentals of responsible AI development. Safety still depends on:

clearly defined objectives and constraints
rigorous internal and red-team testing
detection and mitigation of harmful content
strong governance around data, privacy, and provenance
continuous monitoring and fast feedback loops

What does change is the urgency. As AI becomes better at interacting like a human, people may lower their guard, trusting outputs more readily and questioning them less.

What comes next

The researchers plan to explore how shared conversational topics shape group-level behavior among AI agents, and how “population-level personalities” evolve over time. These insights may help improve AI systems, but they may also teach us something deeper about ourselves.

At Control F5 Software, this research reinforces a key idea: AI is no longer just about outputs. It is about behavior, interaction, and long-term impact. As systems become more adaptive, the responsibility to design, test, and govern them thoughtfully becomes not optional, but foundational.

Source