Wolfram Cloud Document

Abstract
The goal of this study is finding the most positive AI in different level of depressing situation focusing on sentiment distribution. The levels of prompt’s depression are divided into four based on negativity probability: 0.6-0.7, 0.7-0.8, 0.8-0.9, 0.9-1.0. Fifteen prompts per level are given to AI, and all of their answers are analyzed with Classify[“Sentiment”]. Sentiment distribution observes how positivity scores of sentences are spread; models with high concentration in the higher bound are defined as more positive. Among three models, the most positive model is ChatGPT in 0.6 - 0.7 level, Claude in 0.7 - 0.8 level, and Gemini in both 0.8 - 0.9 level and 0.9 - 1.0 level. However, by absolute standards, none of the models are positive; rather they are biased toward negativity.

1. Introduction

The most distinguished characteristics of AI’s writing from human writing may be the positivity. While humans remain negative in depressing situations, AI hardly shows the negative response in discouraging situations (Bardol, 2025). This might be the result of an endeavor to maximize the users’ satisfaction. Users perceive LLMs more useful, trustful when they get positive answers from LLMs (Pataranutaporn et al., 2026). In this research, I intend to verify this hypothesis that LLMs will generate positively biased answers even to negative prompts.

Unfortunately, positivity is not always helpful to users. When users counsel their depressing situation with AI, the cheerfulness of it will help users. However, when users ask the dispassionate review for loss in stock market, positivity of AI can be counterproductive. Depending on the situation of the user, the optimal level of AI’s positivity is different. Using different AI models based on the situation can lead to better user experience. The problem is that choosing an optimal AI model for a specific situation is hard due to the lack of research about comparison of different AI model’s positivity.

Therefore, this research aims to provide useful data for optimal AI matching for each situation. Positivity distribution of three LLM models’ answers - ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude - in four levels of depressing situations will be analyzed. Sentiment scores of each model’s answers per level will be plotted to probability density function graph. It will show the general tendency of each model to discouraging prompts.

2. Methodology

2.1 Prompt

a. Creation of Prompt

Each LLM are asked to generate the depressing topic of essay. The tasks are asked without log-in, while Claude is logged in with no baseline data. The prompt is as following:

Suggest me the open discussion question that I can write a 300 words essay. I want the question is about the drastically tragic situation.

b. Classifying the level

Calculate the depressing level of whole prompt.

In[]:=

Classify["Sentiment","If a person gives their life to save another, but the person they saved dies moments later anyway, was the sacrifice a beautiful act of love or a meaningless waste of a soul?","Probabilities"]

Out[]=

Positive0.280108,Neutral0.0307618,Negative0.68913

Since the negative sentiment score is within 0.6 - 0.7, it is categorized into level 0.6. This process is repeated until each level has 5 prompts per AI.

c. Creation of answer

Each LLM is asked to generate 300 words essay about AI-generated topic. The tasks are asked without log-in, while Claude is logged in with no baseline data. The prompt is as following:

Write me a 300 words essay about this topic : “AI-generated topic”

2.2 Sentiment Distribution

Segment each model’s response into individual sentences.

In[]:=

SampleSentence = TextSentences["Surviving a tragedy can have a profound impact on a person's life. Some people emerge from difficult experiences stronger and more resilient, while others suffer lasting emotional and psychological damage. Whether tragedy makes a person stronger or permanently damaged depends on many factors, including their personality, support system, and the nature of the event itself.On one hand, tragedy can help people develop inner strength. Facing hardship often teaches valuable life lessons about perseverance, courage, and gratitude. Many survivors learn to appreciate life more deeply and become better able to handle future challenges. For example, people who overcome serious illnesses, natural disasters, or personal losses may discover strengths they never knew they possessed. Their experiences can inspire them to help others and create positive change in their communities.On the other hand, tragedies can leave deep scars that are difficult to heal. Some survivors experience long-term effects such as anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Painful memories may continue to affect their relationships, work, and daily lives. In severe cases, the emotional damage can remain for many years, making it hard for individuals to fully recover. Not everyone has access to the support, therapy, or resources needed to overcome such challenges.However, being damaged and being strong are not always opposites. A person can carry emotional wounds while still showing remarkable resilience. In fact, many survivors learn to live with their pain rather than completely erase it. Their strength comes not from forgetting the tragedy but from continuing to move forward despite it.In conclusion, surviving a tragedy can make people stronger, permanently damaged, or both at the same time. Human responses to suffering are complex, and every individual's journey is different. What matters most is the support, understanding, and opportunities available to help survivors heal and grow."]

Out[]=

Evaluate the positivity of sentences.

In[]:=

SampleSentiment = Classify["Sentiment", SampleSentence, "Probabilities"]

Out[]=

{Positive0.465087,Neutral0.186495,Negative0.348418,Positive0.0147577,Neutral0.0717661,Negative0.913476,Positive0.00334986,Neutral0.360117,Negative0.636533,Positive0.200635,Neutral0.478409,Negative0.320955,Positive0.27852,Neutral0.220708,Negative0.500772,Positive0.716208,Neutral0.0298132,Negative0.253979,Positive0.0161798,Neutral0.148588,Negative0.835233,Positive0.667822,Neutral0.228623,Negative0.103554,Positive0.01533,Neutral0.240377,Negative0.744293,Positive0.0339053,Neutral0.422592,Negative0.543502,Positive0.274418,Neutral0.460044,Negative0.265538,Positive0.00674482,Neutral0.108849,Negative0.884406,Positive0.0404313,Neutral0.0504149,Negative0.909154,Positive0.0172929,Neutral0.0307807,Negative0.951926,Positive0.341089,Neutral0.3675,Negative0.291411,Positive0.0358619,Neutral0.18919,Negative0.774949,Positive0.00943163,Neutral0.0352091,Negative0.955359,Positive0.0715483,Neutral0.110258,Negative0.818193,Positive0.0191327,Neutral0.803758,Negative0.177109,Positive0.419705,Neutral0.471014,Negative0.109281}

Plot sentiment scores of all sentences from one AI in one level.

In[]:=

SampleSentences=Flatten[{SampleSentence,SentenceGPT26gpt,SentenceGPT36gpt,SentenceGPT46gpt,SentenceGPT56gpt,SentenceGem16gpt,SentenceGem26gpt,SentenceGem36gpt,SentenceGem46gpt,SentenceGem56gpt,SentenceCla16gpt,SentenceCla26gpt,SentenceCla36gpt,SentenceCla46gpt,SentenceCla56gpt}]SampleSentiments=Classify["Sentiment",SampleSentences,"Probabilities"]SamplePo=Lookup[#,"Positive",0.]&/@SampleSentimentsSampleGPo=SmoothKernelDistribution[SamplePo,Automatic,{"Bounded",{0,1},"Gaussian"}]Plot[CDF[SampleGPo,x],{x,0,1},Filling->Axis,PlotRange->All,PlotLabel->"Positivity Distribution of ChatGPT's answers in 0.6-0.7 level"]

Out[]=

{Surviving a tragedy can have a profound impact on a person's life.,Some people emerge from difficult experiences stronger and more resilient, while others suffer lasting emotional and psychological damage.,Whether tragedy makes a person stronger or permanently damaged depends on many factors, including their personality, support system, and the nature of the event itself.,On one hand, tragedy can help people develop inner strength.,Facing hardship often teaches valuable life lessons about perseverance, courage, and gratitude.,Many survivors learn to appreciate life more deeply and become better able to handle future challenges.,For example, people who overcome serious illnesses, natural disasters, or personal losses may discover strengths they never knew they possessed.,Their experiences can inspire them to help others and create positive change in their communities.,On the other hand, tragedies can leave deep scars that are difficult to heal.,Some survivors experience long-term effects such as anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).,Painful memories may continue to affect their relationships, work, and daily lives.,In severe cases, the emotional damage can remain for many years, making it hard for individuals to fully recover.,Not everyone has access to the support, therapy, or resources needed to overcome such challenges.,However, being damaged and being strong are not always opposites.,A person can carry emotional wounds while still showing remarkable resilience.,In fact, many survivors learn to live with their pain rather than completely erase it.,Their strength comes not from forgetting the tragedy but from continuing to move forward despite it.,In conclusion, surviving a tragedy can make people stronger, permanently damaged, or both at the same time.,Human responses to suffering are complex, and every individual's journey is different.,What matters most is the support, understanding, and opportunities available to help survivors heal and grow.,Disasters such as earthquakes, floods, fires, and hurricanes often create situations where people must make difficult decisions.,One of the most challenging questions is whether individuals should risk their own lives to save strangers.,While helping others is an admirable act of courage and compassion, people should carefully consider the level of danger before putting themselves at risk.,On one hand, risking one's life to save another person can be seen as a heroic and selfless act.,Throughout history, many ordinary people have become heroes by rescuing strangers during emergencies.,Their actions have saved countless lives and inspired others to act with kindness and bravery.,In times of disaster, quick action from nearby individuals can sometimes make the difference between life and death, especially before professional rescue teams arrive.,On the other hand, risking one's own life can have serious consequences.,If an untrained person enters a dangerous situation, they may become another victim, making rescue efforts even more difficult.,For example, attempting to save someone from a fast-moving flood or a burning building without proper equipment can endanger both the rescuer and the person in need.,People also have responsibilities to their families and loved ones, who depend on them for support and care.,Therefore, the best approach is to help others whenever possible, but in a way that does not create unnecessary danger.,Calling emergency services, providing first aid, or assisting from a safe location can be effective ways to contribute.,Courage is important, but so is good judgment.,In conclusion, saving strangers during disasters is a noble goal, but people should not recklessly sacrifice their own lives.,Helping others should be encouraged, provided that the risks are carefully evaluated and reasonable steps are taken to ensure everyone's safety.,Disasters can destroy homes, communities, and entire landscapes within moments.,While rebuilding efforts often succeed in restoring physical structures, the emotional losses caused by disasters are much more difficult to recover.,The question of whether rebuilding can truly restore what was emotionally lost remains complex.,On one hand, reconstruction provides people with a sense of stability and hope.,New homes, schools, and public spaces help communities return to daily life and create opportunities for recovery.,Rebuilding can also strengthen social bonds as people work together to overcome challenges.,In this way, the process of reconstruction may help heal emotional wounds by giving survivors a sense of purpose and resilience.,However, emotional losses often extend beyond what can be repaired with bricks and concrete.,Many people lose loved ones, treasured possessions, and memories connected to places that no longer exist.,A family home, for example, may be rebuilt, but it cannot fully replace the experiences and emotions associated with the original.,Similarly, communities may never completely recover the sense of security they once had before a disaster occurred.,Despite these challenges, rebuilding can create new meanings and memories.,Survivors often find strength in remembering what was lost while adapting to new circumstances.,Memorials, community events, and shared stories can preserve important emotional connections and help future generations understand the significance of the past.,Although these efforts do not erase grief, they can transform it into a source of unity and growth.,In conclusion, rebuilding after a disaster cannot fully restore everything that was emotionally lost.,Some memories, relationships, and feelings are irreplaceable.,Nevertheless, reconstruction can support emotional recovery by offering hope, connection, and the chance to create new memories.,Rather than restoring the past completely, rebuilding helps people move forward while honoring what they have lost.,The question of whether it is right to lie to someone who is going to die is a difficult moral dilemma.,On one hand, honesty is an important value because people deserve to know the truth about their lives.,On the other hand, a small lie might provide comfort, peace, and hope during a person's final days.,Deciding what is right depends on how we balance truth and compassion.,Those who support telling the truth argue that every person has the right to make informed decisions about their remaining time.,If someone knows they are dying, they may want to spend time with loved ones, settle personal matters, or fulfill final wishes.,Lying could take away these opportunities and prevent them from facing reality on their own terms.,Trust is also important in relationships, and a lie, even with good intentions, can damage that trust.,However, others believe that giving hope can be more valuable than strict honesty in certain situations.,A dying person may experience fear, sadness, and despair.,If a comforting lie helps them feel peaceful and optimistic, it could reduce emotional suffering.,In some cases, hope itself can improve a person's quality of life, even if the hope is based on information that is not entirely true.,Personally, I believe that compassion should guide our actions, but it should not require direct deception.,Instead of lying, it is possible to offer emotional support, encouragement, and comfort while still respecting the truth.,People deserve honesty, but they also deserve kindness.,By balancing both values, we can help someone face the end of life with dignity and hope.,In conclusion, lying to give hope may come from a good intention, but honesty combined with compassion is often the better choice.,Respecting the truth while providing support allows a person to make meaningful decisions and find peace in their final moments.,Losing someone we love is one of the most difficult experiences in life.,However, people often wonder whether it is more painful to lose someone suddenly or to watch them slowly disappear over time.,While both situations cause deep emotional suffering, each type of loss brings a different kind of pain.,A sudden loss is shocking and unexpected.,When a loved one dies in an accident or passes away without warning, family and friends are left with unanswered questions and feelings of disbelief.,The pain arrives all at once, making it difficult to accept reality.,People may struggle with regret, wishing they had said goodbye or spent more time with the person.,The suddenness of the loss can leave emotional wounds that take years to heal.,On the other hand, watching someone slowly disappear can be equally heartbreaking.,This often happens when a person suffers from a long illness, such as cancer or dementia.,Loved ones witness gradual changes in their health, personality, or abilities.,Although there may be time to prepare for the loss, the process can be emotionally exhausting.,Seeing someone suffer day after day creates feelings of helplessness and sadness.,In some cases, family members experience grief long before the person is gone.,Personally, I believe that watching someone slowly disappear is more painful.,The continuous emotional burden and the daily reminder of the coming loss can be overwhelming.,While sudden loss is devastating, prolonged suffering forces loved ones to endure heartbreak repeatedly over a long period.,In conclusion, both sudden loss and gradual loss are deeply painful experiences.,The pain depends on the individual and the circumstances.,However, watching someone slowly fade away can be especially difficult because it combines grief, helplessness, and emotional exhaustion over time.,War is one of humanity's most devastating experiences, leaving destruction that extends far beyond the battlefield.,While the loss of life is often seen as the greatest tragedy of war, the psychological damage suffered by survivors can be equally heartbreaking.,The ultimate tragedy lies not only in those who die but also in the lasting scars carried by those who live through the horrors of conflict.,The physical loss of life is undeniably tragic.,Every death represents a future cut short, a family left grieving, and a contribution to society that will never be realized.,Soldiers and civilians alike become victims of violence, and their absence creates pain that can last for generations.,The scale of death in many wars serves as a reminder of the terrible cost of human conflict.,However, survivors often endure suffering that continues long after the fighting ends.,Many experience trauma, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.,Haunted by memories of violence, loss, and fear, they may struggle to return to normal life.,Unlike physical wounds, psychological injuries are often invisible, making them harder to recognize and heal.,Some survivors spend the rest of their lives battling nightmares, guilt, and emotional isolation.,Moreover, broken sanity can affect entire communities.,Traumatised individuals may find it difficult to build relationships, raise families, or contribute positively to society.,In this way, the mental consequences of war can spread across generations, creating cycles of suffering long after peace has been restored.,In conclusion, both death and psychological trauma are profound tragedies of war.,Yet the broken minds of survivors reveal a unique and enduring form of suffering.,While the dead are beyond pain, those who survive may carry the burden of war every day, making psychological devastation one of war's most tragic consequences.,Losing a home is one of the most painful experiences a person can face, regardless of the cause.,Whether a home is destroyed by a natural disaster or taken by the government through eminent domain, the result is often emotional distress and major life changes.,However, many people would argue that losing a home through eminent domain can feel worse than losing it to a disaster.,Natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and wildfires are tragic events that can destroy homes and communities.,Yet, because these events are caused by nature, people often view them as unavoidable.,Communities frequently come together to support victims, and governments and charities may provide financial assistance to help families rebuild their lives.,Although the loss is devastating, there is often a sense that no individual is directly responsible.,In contrast, eminent domain occurs when the government takes private property for public use, such as building roads, schools, or other infrastructure.,While property owners usually receive compensation, they may feel that they have little choice in the matter.,Unlike a disaster, eminent domain involves a deliberate decision made by people.,Homeowners may feel powerless, angry, or betrayed, especially if they have strong emotional ties to their property or believe the compensation is unfair.,On the other hand, some argue that losing a home to a disaster is worse because disasters can happen suddenly and leave families with nothing.,Eminent domain at least provides legal procedures and financial compensation, giving homeowners time to prepare for relocation.,Ultimately, both situations are difficult and deeply personal.,However, losing a home through eminent domain may feel worse emotionally because it results from a human decision rather than an uncontrollable force of nature.,The sense of injustice can make the loss especially painful for many homeowners.,The question of whether a doctor should hide a terminal diagnosis from a deeply fragile patient is one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas in medicine.,On one hand, doctors have a duty to tell the truth and respect a patient's right to make informed decisions about their own life and treatment.,On the other hand, they also have a responsibility to protect patients from serious harm.,When revealing the truth could lead to immediate suicide, these two duties come into direct conflict.,Supporters of withholding the diagnosis argue that preserving life should be the doctor's highest priority.,If a patient is emotionally unstable and likely to end their life upon hearing the diagnosis, temporarily hiding the truth may prevent an irreversible tragedy.,In such cases, doctors could use the extra time to provide psychological support, involve mental health professionals, and help the patient develop coping mechanisms before disclosing the full reality of their condition.,However, opponents argue that deception undermines patient autonomy and trust.,Every person has the right to know important information about their own health, even if that information is painful.,A terminal diagnosis affects decisions about treatment, family relationships, finances, and personal goals.,Denying a patient the truth may rob them of the opportunity to prepare for the end of life and make meaningful choices during their remaining time.,A balanced approach may be the most ethical solution.,Rather than permanently hiding the diagnosis, doctors should carefully assess the patient's mental state and provide immediate emotional support.,The truth can be disclosed gradually and compassionately while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place.,In this way, doctors can respect both the patient's right to know and their duty to protect life.,Ultimately, honesty remains essential, but it should be delivered with sensitivity, timing, and professional care.,Violence has been a part of human history for thousands of years.,Despite witnessing the devastating effects of wars, crimes, and conflicts, humanity continues to engage in violent behavior.,This raises an important question: why do people persist in committing violence even when they understand its harmful consequences?,One reason is that violence often stems from powerful emotions such as anger, fear, hatred, and jealousy.,When individuals feel threatened or overwhelmed by these emotions, they may act impulsively without considering the long-term effects of their actions.,In many cases, emotional reactions can overpower rational thinking, leading people to choose violence as a way to express their feelings or protect themselves.,Another factor is competition for resources, power, and influence.,Throughout history, groups and nations have fought over land, wealth, political control, and other valuable assets.,Even when leaders understand the destruction caused by conflict, they may still resort to violence if they believe it will help them achieve their goals or maintain their authority.,Social and cultural influences also play a significant role.,Some societies normalize violence through traditions, media, or political ideologies.,Individuals who grow up in environments where violence is common may come to view it as an acceptable solution to problems.,Additionally, misinformation, prejudice, and discrimination can fuel hostility between different groups, increasing the likelihood of violent actions.,Finally, human beings are imperfect and often struggle to learn from past mistakes.,While history provides countless examples of the suffering caused by violence, lessons from the past are sometimes forgotten or ignored.,In conclusion, humanity continues to commit violence because of emotional impulses, competition for power and resources, social influences, and the difficulty of overcoming deeply rooted behaviors.,Understanding these causes is essential for promoting peace and reducing violence in the future.,Fear is one of the most powerful emotions that human beings experience.,It is a natural response to danger and helps people protect themselves from threats.,However, when fear becomes overwhelming, it can sometimes cause ordinary people to behave in harmful and dangerous ways.,Throughout history, fear has influenced people's actions during times of crisis, war, and uncertainty.,When individuals feel threatened, they may act irrationally to protect themselves or their loved ones.,In some cases, fear can lead to aggression, violence, or discrimination against others.,For example, people may blame certain groups for their problems or spread rumors because they are afraid of the unknown.,Fear can also affect decision-making.,Instead of thinking calmly and logically, frightened individuals often react emotionally.,This can result in actions that they would not normally consider.,A person who feels cornered or desperate may become dangerous because fear pushes them to prioritize survival above everything else.,Even kind and peaceful people can act aggressively when they believe they are in serious danger.,However, fear does not always turn people into dangerous individuals.,Many people respond to fear with courage, compassion, and cooperation.,During natural disasters or emergencies, countless ordinary citizens risk their own safety to help others.,Their actions demonstrate that fear can also inspire resilience and unity.,The impact of fear depends on several factors, including a person's character, values, and the situation they face.,While fear has the potential to bring out harmful behavior, it can also encourage strength and responsibility.,Therefore, fear itself is not the problem; rather, it is how people choose to respond to it.,In conclusion, fear can turn ordinary people into dangerous individuals under certain circumstances, but it can also motivate positive actions.,Understanding and managing fear is essential for making wise decisions and maintaining a peaceful society.,Institutional betrayal occurs when organizations that are expected to protect individuals instead fail them, particularly in moments of vulnerability.,Schools, workplaces, religious institutions, healthcare systems, and governments often promise safety and support.,However, when harm occurs, victims frequently discover that these institutions are more concerned with preserving their reputations than with ensuring justice.,This creates a profound tragedy: victims often spend more time and emotional energy trying to convince others that they were harmed than they ever received in protection beforehand.,The process of seeking acknowledgment can be exhausting.,Victims may face skepticism, denial, or even retaliation when reporting abuse, discrimination, or misconduct.,Instead of receiving immediate support, they are often required to provide evidence, repeat traumatic experiences, and defend their credibility.,This burden can intensify the original harm, leaving individuals feeling isolated and powerless.,In many cases, the institution's response becomes a second source of trauma.,The irony is striking.,Institutions are established to prevent harm through policies, safeguards, and accountability measures.,Yet when these protections fail, the responsibility shifts unfairly onto victims.,Rather than focusing resources on prevention and support, institutions may invest more effort in questioning reports or minimizing responsibility.,As a result, victims become advocates for their own legitimacy instead of beneficiaries of the protection they were promised.,This reality highlights the true tragedy of institutional betrayal.,The issue is not only that harm occurred but also that victims must fight to have their experiences recognized.,A just institution would prioritize protection, transparency, and accountability from the beginning.,When belief becomes harder to obtain than protection ever was, trust in institutions is deeply damaged, and the very purpose of those institutions is called into question.,Many people believe that as we grow older, our personalities, habits, and life paths become fixed.,However, I do not think it is ever too late to reinvent yourself and become someone new.,While change may become more challenging with age, it remains possible throughout life.,First, human beings are capable of learning and adapting at any stage of life.,People often discover new interests, careers, or goals long after they reach adulthood.,For example, some individuals return to school in their forties or fifties, while others start businesses after retirement.,These examples show that personal growth does not have an expiration date.,Second, life experiences can inspire transformation.,Difficult events such as losing a job, moving to a new city, or overcoming a personal struggle often encourage people to rethink their priorities.,As a result, they may develop new values, attitudes, and ambitions.,In many cases, these changes lead to a stronger sense of purpose and happiness.,On the other hand, completely reinventing oneself is not always easy.,Older people may face responsibilities, financial limitations, or fears that make change difficult.,In addition, deeply rooted habits can take time to overcome.,Nevertheless, determination and persistence can help individuals overcome these obstacles and create meaningful changes in their lives.,Furthermore, becoming “someone new” does not necessarily mean abandoning the past.,Instead, it often involves building on previous experiences while developing new skills, perspectives, and goals.,Personal reinvention is usually a gradual process rather than an instant transformation.,In conclusion, it is never too late in life to reinvent yourself and become someone new.,Although the process may require courage and effort, people can continue to grow, learn, and change regardless of their age.,The possibility of transformation remains one of the most inspiring aspects of being human.,In today's world, people are constantly encouraged to discover their life's purpose.,Social media, self-help books, and motivational speakers often promote the idea that everyone should have a clear passion or mission.,While having a sense of purpose can provide direction and motivation, the growing pressure to find one may be doing more harm than good to modern generations.,One major problem is that this expectation can create unnecessary stress and anxiety.,Many young people feel they must identify their purpose early in life and build their future around it.,When they struggle to find a clear answer, they may feel lost, inadequate, or unsuccessful compared to others who appear to have everything figured out.,As a result, the search for purpose can become a source of frustration rather than inspiration.,Furthermore, the idea that every person has a single, unique purpose is often unrealistic.,People's interests, goals, and values change over time.,Someone may pursue several meaningful paths throughout their life rather than one lifelong mission.,By focusing too much on finding a grand purpose, individuals may overlook smaller experiences, relationships, and achievements that bring happiness and fulfillment.,However, having goals and a sense of meaning can still be beneficial.,A purpose can encourage personal growth, resilience, and commitment.,The key is to view purpose as something flexible rather than something that must be discovered immediately.,Instead of searching for one perfect calling, people can focus on exploring opportunities and developing their interests over time.,In conclusion, while a sense of purpose can be valuable, the pressure to find it can negatively affect modern generations.,Society should encourage exploration and self-discovery rather than imposing unrealistic expectations about finding a single life-defining purpose.,When the home you grew up in is sold after a parent passes away, the experience is rarely just a property transaction.,Although legal documents are signed and ownership changes hands, the emotional significance of the event reaches far beyond real estate.,For many people, the sale of a childhood home represents the closing of a chapter that can never truly be reopened.,A childhood home is more than a physical structure made of walls, windows, and rooms.,It serves as a container for memories, family traditions, and personal growth.,Within its spaces, children take their first steps, celebrate birthdays, share meals, and experience both joy and hardship.,Over time, the house becomes intertwined with a person's identity, holding countless reminders of the people and moments that shaped their life.,When a parent dies, the loss already creates a profound sense of absence.,Selling the family home can deepen that feeling because it removes a tangible connection to the past.,Returning to the house often provides comfort, allowing family members to revisit memories and feel close to loved ones who are gone.,Once the property is sold, that place of connection is no longer theirs, and the realization can make the finality of loss feel even more real.,Yet, while the physical space may disappear from one's life, the memories attached to it remain.,The chapter closes because life moves forward, but its story continues to influence those who lived it.,The house may belong to someone else, but the experiences it witnessed cannot be bought, sold, or erased.,Therefore, the sale of a childhood home after a parent's death is not merely a financial transaction.,It symbolizes the end of an irreplaceable era, marking a transition that is both painful and deeply human.,When a person who has experienced profound loss chooses to remain open to love and connection anyway, it may be one of the quietest and most radical acts of courage imaginable.,Loss has a way of changing people.,Whether through the death of a loved one, the end of a meaningful relationship, or another life-altering heartbreak, deep grief leaves lasting marks.,It teaches us how vulnerable we truly are and reminds us that everything we cherish can be taken away.,In the aftermath of such pain, withdrawing from others can seem like the safest choice.,Yet some people choose a different path.,Despite knowing the risks of attachment, they continue to trust, care, and invest themselves in relationships.,This decision is not made out of ignorance or naïve optimism.,On the contrary, it comes from a place of hard-earned wisdom.,Those who have suffered loss understand better than most that love does not come with guarantees.,They know that every meaningful connection carries the possibility of future sorrow.,Nevertheless, they choose love.,This form of courage is often overlooked because it is not dramatic or visible.,It does not attract applause or recognition.,Instead, it appears in everyday moments: opening one's heart to a new friendship, allowing oneself to fall in love again, or simply remaining emotionally present for others after experiencing heartbreak.,These actions require immense strength because they involve embracing uncertainty rather than avoiding it.,In a world where pain can encourage fear and isolation, choosing connection becomes a powerful act of resistance.,It affirms that the value of love outweighs the possibility of loss.,Ultimately, the willingness to love again after profound grief demonstrates not weakness, but extraordinary resilience.,It is a quiet declaration that, despite suffering, the heart remains open to life.}

3. Sentiment Distribution

3.1 0.6 - 0.7 level

Draw positivity distribution graph of three models in 0.6 - 0.7 level

ChatGPT appears to be the most positive model in 0.6- 0.7 level because the low initial values of the CDF imply that data has a smaller proportion of low-value scores and higher concentration in the upper bounds. However, it does not mean ChatGPT is positive by absolute standard. In all models, more than 70% of sentences have positivity sentiment below 0.2. Most answers are not positive, which suggests LLMs do not have positive bias in this level. This leaves three possibilities: the model responses are fundamentally negative, neutral, or a combination of both. To evaluate possibilities, analysis of negativity and neutrality distribution are needed.

Draw negativity distribution and neutrality distribution graph

In all models, negativity and neutrality distribution show slower accumulation than positivity distribution.

Draw all sentiments’ distribution graph of each model in one plane.

Sentiments are not distributed equally to positivity, negativity and neutrality. They are allocated to negativity and neutrality similarly. In particular, answers of Gemini and Claude seem to be biased toward negativity and neutrality, not toward positivity. In contrast, ChatGPT’s responses slightly lean toward negativity.

3.2 0.7 - 0.8 level

Draw Positivity distribution graph of three models in 0.7 - 0.8 level.

It appears that Claude is the most positive model in 0.7 - 0.8 level. However, Claude is only relatively positive since positive sentiment is focused on [0, 0.2]. Evan at more negative level, LLMs continue to exhibit an absence of positive bias.

Draw all sentiments’ distribution graph in one plane.

The graphs indicate that answers of ChatGPT and Gemini have similar distribution between negativity and neutrality, but slightly biased toward negativity. Whereas, Claude’s responses seem to be somewhat skewed in favor of negativity.

3.3 0.8 - 0.9 level

Draw Positivity distribution graph of three models in 0.8 - 0.9 level.

Gemini emerges as the most positive model in 0.8 - 0.9 level, while ChatGPT is the least positive model in this level. The graph shows high concentration in low interval, which suggests possibility that sentiment distribution is biased toward negativity or neutrality or both.

Draw all sentiments’ distribution graph in one plane.

All models are moderately biased toward negativity unlike previous levels. It indicates that changes of sentiment level of prompts in more depressing ways impact sentiment distribution of their answers.

3.4 0.9 - 1.0 level

Draw Positivity distribution graph of three models in 0.9 - 1.0 level.

Consistent with the trend of the previous level, the most positive model in 0.9 - 1.0 level appears to be Gemini and the least positive model seems to be ChatGPT.

Draw all sentiments’ distribution graph in one plane.

Answers of ChatGPT and Claude show moderately biased sentiment distribution toward negativity. The graph of Gemini implies that distribution mildly leans toward negativity.

3.5 Trend

Show the changes of positivity concentration in [0, 0.2].

All models show a uniform trajectory regarding shifts in score density. From 0.6 - 0.7 tier to 0.7 - 0.8 tier, concentration increases but after that, every models exhibit decrease in density when depressing level increases. In low level, increased depressing level makes answers become less positive than before. However, in high level, it makes LLM’s answers become more positive than previous level. In addition, ChatGPT’s concentration figures decrease sharply compared to other models. ChatGPT seems to be the most sensitive model to changes in sentiment of prompts.

4. Conclusion

4.1 Conclusion

In each level, the most positive model is as shown in the table above. However, by absolute standard, even the most positive model can not be considered positive because of low positivity scores. My initial hypothesis was that LLMs may show positive bias even if the prompt is depressing. Contrary to that, LLMs rather exhibit bias toward negativity and neutrality. In 0.6 - 0.7 level, most models show skewed sentiment distribution toward negativity and neutrality. Other levels manifest bias in favor of negativity. The more depressing the prompts are, the more biased the distribution is. Basic LLMs replicate negative sentiment of depressing prompts. The reason that LLMs did not show positive bias might be because there was no baseline data. AI begins to produce more favorable responses after interaction with users (Jain et al., 2026), which was not present in this research. Therefore, future work should examine how LLMs’ tendency changes after dynamic interaction with users.

4.2 Limitations

Even though generative AI created the prompts, I selected 15 prompts among all possible prompts whose sentiment scores were within level category standard. I eliminated repeated subjects and tried to make sentiment scores diverse within one level. After I selected prompts, I generated the answers and analyzed the sentiment scores. Consequently, this process preserved data integrity.

When I generated answers, I failed to generate Claude’s answers without any previous chat data. Claude required log-in to converse. So when creating Claude’s answers, chat data was accumulated. I did not rate any of Claude’s answers and just asked Claude to write essays about designated prompts. However, Claude also had the chat data of generating prompts. Claude’s results may have been influenced by these baseline data, but other models’ answers were created under no baseline data.

When AI models answer the prompts, ChatGPT and Claude often include titles in their essay. ChatGPT’s titles were just repeating prompts, whereas Claude’s titles were not. I decided to exclude all the titles in analysis because of two reasons. First, analyzing the sentiments of prompts was repetitive. Second, analyzing only Claude’s title lacks methodological consistency.

Gemini sometimes included tables in its answers. However, I exclude tables in the answer due to two reasons. First, the contents in the table are hard to separate automatically because they do not usually have punctuation marks. Second, the contents in the table are often short, which makes it very hard to proceed with sentiment analysis.

Originally, I intended to calculate a regression line in order to evaluate the drift of positivity sentiment. However, p-value was higher than 0.4 and coefficient of determinant was lower than 0.2. The regression line was not statistically meaningful, which is the reason that I decided not to include regression analysis in this essay.

References

◼

Abdullah, K., Suprith, G., Nicole, A., Dave, P., Gracia, B., Elly, B., Ahsun, A., & Hassan, J. (2026). Assessing the accuracy and bias of large language models in drafting management discussion and analysis (MD&A) reports from structured XBRL data. International Journal of Multi Discipline Science (IJ-MDS). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403661392

◼

Almulla, N. (2025). The use of hedging devices and engagement markers in AI-Generated and Human-Written Essays: A Corpus-Based comparison. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 15(05), 754–772. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2025.155044

◼

Jain, S., Park, C., Viana, M., Wilson, A., & Calacci, D. (2026). Interaction context often increases sycophancy in LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 793, pp. 1–26). https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791915

◼

Pataranutaporn, P., Lee, E., Amores, J., & Maes, P. (2026). Personal validation effect in LLMs: positive AI responses bias perceptions of validity, reliability, personalization, and usefulness of fictitious predictions. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Article 117, pp. 1–18). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791851

Appendix