Crafting Human-AI Interaction: A Rhetorical Approach to Adaptive Interaction in Conversational Agents
Pages 314 - 322
Abstract
As we navigate through the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), human-AI interactions have implications across various fields. Despite significant technical advancements, the interaction aspect remains challenging and continues to impact user trust and acceptance of the systems. Addressing this research gap, this paper introduces an approach for adaptive human-AI interaction or communication, particularly conversational agents. Drawing inspiration from classical rhetoric – ‘ethos, logos and pathos’, we propose a framework to integrate adaptive interaction strategies in the design of AI-enabled conversational agents. The method emphasizes on using a user-centered approach to design adaptive interaction with AI-based conversational agents based on the user and context of use. This paper discusses theoretical concepts, a sample application, and considerations from a human-factors perspective for designing intuitive and meaningful interactions between humans and AI leading to a positive user experience, trust and acceptance of AI-based systems.
References
[1]
Amina Adadi and Mohammed Berrada. 2018. Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access 6 (2018), 52138–52160. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052
[2]
Rangina Ahmad, Dominik Siemon, Ulrich Gnewuch, and Susanne Robra-Bissantz. 2022. Designing Personality-Adaptive Conversational Agents for Mental Health Care. Information Systems Frontiers 24, 3 (2022), 923–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10254-9
[3]
Merav Allouch, Amos Azaria, and Rina Azoulay. 2021. Conversational Agents: Goals, Technologies, Vision and Challenges. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 21, 24 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21248448)
[4]
Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Stephen Brewster, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Anna Cox, and Vassilis Kostakos (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
[5]
Katharina Bachfischer. 2008. Konzeption und Implementierung eines adaptiven Touchscreen-Interfaces für das Fahrzeug. Ph. D. Dissertation.
[6]
David Bade. 2009. Ethos, Logos, Pathos or Sender, Message, Receiver?: A Problematological Rhetoric for Information Technologies. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 47, 7 (2009), 612–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639370903111981
[7]
Dean C. Barnlund. 1970. A transactional model of communication. In Language Behavior. De Gruyter, Berlin.
[8]
Petter Bae Brandtzaeg and Asbjørn Følstad. 2017. Why People Use Chatbots. In Internet Science(Information Systems and Applications, incl. Internet/Web, and HCI), Georg Carle, Jonathan Cave, Sotiris Diplaris, Ioannis Kompatsiaris, Efstratios Kontopoulos, Donald McMillan, Antonella Passani, and Anna Satsiou (Eds.). Springer International Publishing and Imprint: Springer, Cham, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70284-1_30
[9]
Susan E. Brennan. 1998. The Grounding Problem in Conversations With and Through Computers. Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (1998), 201–225.
[10]
Alan Brinton. 1988. Pathos and the "Appeal to Emotion": An Aristotelian Analysis. History of Philosophy Quarterly 5, 3 (1988). https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27743856.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Ad4e5f4434fff5630fb0d3bc9c72ab375&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
[11]
Jean Caelen and Anne Xuereb. 2014. Dialogue Analysis: Pragmatic and Rhetorical Aspects. In Interdisciplinary works in logic, epistemology, psychology and linguistics, Manuel Rebuschi (Ed.). Springer, Cham.
[12]
Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Arne Risa Hole, Nicola Mead, Ruth McDonald, Diane Whalley, Peter Bower, and Martin Roland. 2008. What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Annals of Family Medicine 6, 2 (2008), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.816
[13]
Christine Rzepka and Benedikt Berger. 2018. User Interaction with AI-enabled Systems: A Systematic Review of IS Research. In Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benedikt-Berger-2/publication/329269262_User_Interaction_with_AI-enabled_Systems_A_Systematic_Review_of_IS_Research/links/5bffb55392851c63cab02730/User-Interaction-with-AI-enabled-Systems-A-Systematic-Review-of-IS-Research.pdf
[14]
Leon Ciechanowski, Aleksandra Przegalinska, Mikolaj Magnuski, and Peter Gloor. 2019. In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems 92 (2019), 539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055
[15]
Leigh Clark, Nadia Pantidi, Orla Cooney, Philip Doyle, Diego Garaialde, Justin Edwards, Brendan Spillane, Emer Gilmartin, Christine Murad, Cosmin Munteanu, Vincent Wade, and Benjamin R. Cowan. 2019. What Makes a Good Conversation?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Stephen Brewster, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Anna Cox, and Vassilis Kostakos (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300705
[16]
Kerstin Denecke. 2023. How to Design Successful Conversations in Conversational Agents in Healthcare? In HCI International 2023 Posters, Constantine Stephanidis, Margherita Antona, Stavroula Ntoa, and Gavriel Salvendy (Eds.). Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 1832. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35989-7_5
[17]
Deutsches Institut für Normung. March 2020. Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO 9241-210:2019).
[18]
Stephan Diederich, Max Janssen-Mueller, Alfred Benedikt Brendel, and Stefan Morana. 2019. Emulating Empathetic Behavior in Online Service Encounters with Sentiment-Adaptive Responses: Insights from an Experiment with a Conversational Agent. In ICIS 2019 Proceedings. https://web.archive.org/web/20220802074239id_/https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=icis2019
[19]
David Douek. 2024. Your Guide to Digital Patient Journey Mapping - phamax Digital. https://phamax-digital.ch/academy/digital-patient-journey-mapping/
[20]
Malin Eiband, Sarah Theres Völkel, Daniel Buschek, Sophia Cook, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2019. When people and algorithms meet. In IUI ’19, Wai-Tat Fu, Shimei Pan, Oliver Brdiczka, Polo Chau, and Gaelle Calvary (Eds.). ACM, New York (NY), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302262
[21]
Asbjørn Følstad and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2020. Users’ experiences with chatbots: findings from a questionnaire study. Quality and User Experience 5, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-020-00033-2
[22]
William W. Fortenbaugh. 1992. Aristotle on Persuasion Through Character. Rhetorica 10, 3 (1992), 207–244. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.207
[23]
Helena Anna Frijns, Oliver Schürer, and Sabine Theresia Koeszegi. 2023. Communication Models in Human–Robot Interaction: An Asymmetric MODel of ALterity in Human–Robot Interaction (AMODAL-HRI). International Journal of Social Robotics 15, 3 (2023), 473–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00785-7
[24]
Anastasia Giannakidou and Alda Mari. [n. d.]. The Human and the Mechanical: logos, truthfulness, and ChatGPT. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.01267
[25]
H. P. Grice. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3 : Speech arts, Cole et al. (Ed.). 41–58. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/studypacks/Grice-Logic.pdf
[26]
Andrea L. Guzman and Seth C. Lewis. 2020. Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society 22, 1 (2020), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
[27]
Nayoung Han, Seung Hee Han, Hyuneun Chu, Jaehyun Kim, Ki Yon Rhew, Jeong-Hyun Yoon, Nam Kyung Je, Sandy Jeong Rhie, Eunhee Ji, Euni Lee, Yon Su Kim, and Jung Mi Oh. 2018. Service design oriented multidisciplinary collaborative team care service model development for resolving drug related problems. PloS one 13, 9 (2018), e0201705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201705
[28]
Melanie Hartmann. 2009. Challenges in Developing User-Adaptive Intelligent User Interfaces. In 17th Workshop on Adaptivity and User Modelling in Interactive Systems, Hauger, D., Köck, M. & Nauerz, A. (Ed.). https://fileserver.tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/Publications/2009/LWA09HARTMANN.pdf
[29]
Chih-Wei Huang, Bethany C. Y. Wu, Phung Anh Nguyen, Hsiao-Han Wang, Chih-Chung Kao, Pei-Chen Lee, Annisa Ristya Rahmanti, Jason C. Hsu, Hsuan-Chia Yang, and Yu-Chuan Jack Li. 2023. Emotion recognition in doctor-patient interactions from real-world clinical video database: Initial development of artificial empathy. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 233 (2023), 107480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107480
[30]
Yutan Huang. 2024. Generating User Experience Based on Personas with AI Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings, Abhik Roychoudhury, Ana Paiva, Rui Abreu, and Margaret Storey (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1145/3639478.3639810
[31]
Tim Hulsen. 2024. Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: ChatGPT and Beyond. AI 5, 2 (2024), 550–554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai5020028
[32]
Ulugbek Vahobjon Ugli Ismatullaev and Sang-Ho Kim. 2022. Review of the Factors Affecting Acceptance of AI-Infused Systems. Human factors 66, 1 (2022), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211064707
[33]
Mladan Jovanovic, Marcos Baez, and Fabio Casati. 2021. Chatbots as Conversational Healthcare Services. IEEE Internet Computing 25, 3 (2021), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2020.3037151
[34]
Sage Kelly, Sherrie-Anne Kaye, and Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios. 2023. What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics 77 (2023), 101925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925
[35]
Micahel Kent and Maureen Taylor. 2018. Understanding the Rhetoric of Dialogue and the Dialogue of Rhetoric. In The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication, Øyvind Ihlen and Robert L. Heath (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ.
[36]
Michael L. Kent and Maureen Taylor. 2002. Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review 28, 1 (2002), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X
[37]
Ahmet Baki Kocaballi, Shlomo Berkovsky, Juan C. Quiroz, Liliana Laranjo, Huong Ly Tong, Dana Rezazadegan, Agustina Briatore, and Enrico Coiera. 2019. The Personalization of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review. Journal of medical Internet research 21, 11 (2019), e15360. https://doi.org/10.2196/15360
[38]
Lea Reis, Christian Maier, Jens Mattke, and Tim Weitzel. 2020. CHATBOTS IN HEALTHCARE: STATUS QUO, APPLICATION SCENARIOS FOR PHYSICIANS AND PATIENTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS. ECIS 2020 Research Papers 163 (2020).
[39]
Q. Vera Liao and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. [n. d.]. AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.01941.pdf
[40]
Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss. 2011. Theories of Human Communication: Prayers, poems and meditations (10 ed.). Waveland Press Inc., Long Grove, Illinois.
[41]
Michel Meyer. 1995. Of Problematology: Philosophy, Science and Language. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[42]
Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen Tauber. 1994. Computers are Social Actors. In Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI’94, ACM (Ed.). 72–78.
[43]
Cecilie Bertinussen Nordheim, Asbjørn Følstad, and Cato Alexander Bjørkli. 2019. An Initial Model of Trust in Chatbots for Customer Service—Findings from a Questionnaire Study. Interacting with Computers 31, 3 (2019), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwz022
[44]
Open Textbook Library and University of Minnesota. 2013. Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies. Saylor Foundation. https://books.google.de/books?id=oyIEnwEACAAJ
[45]
Andreas Oster, Eivor Wiking, Gunnar H. Nilsson, and Christina B. Olsson. 2024. Patients’ expectations of primary health care from both patients’ and physicians’ perspectives: a questionnaire study with a qualitative approach. BMC Primary Care 25, 1 (2024), 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02389-2
[46]
Lindsey M. Philpot, Bushra A. Khokhar, Meredith A. DeZutter, Conor G. Loftus, Heidi I. Stehr, Priya Ramar, Lukas P. Madson, and Jon O. Ebbert. 2019. Creation of a Patient-Centered Journey Map to Improve the Patient Experience: A Mixed Methods Approach. Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes 3, 4 (2019), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2019.07.004
[47]
Christof Rapp. 2012. Aristotle on the moral psychology of persuasion. In Rhetoric and the arts. 589–611.
[48]
Lara Riefle and Carina Benz. 2021. User-Specific Determinants of Conversational Agent Usage: A Review and Potential for Future Research. In Innovation Through Information Systems, Frederik Ahlemann, Reinhard Schütte, and Stefan Stieglitz (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, Vol. 47. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86797-3_8
[49]
Lena Rittger, Doreen Engelhardt, and Robert Schwartz. 2022. Adaptive User Experience in the Car—Levels of Adaptivity and Adaptive HMI Design. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, 5 (2022), 4866–4876. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3124990
[50]
Dhruv Sartanpara. [n. d.]. A Comparative Analysis of Chat GPT AI and Google Bard AI: An Exploration of Conversational AI Models. ([n. d.]). https://www.ijcaonline.org/archives/volume185/number22/sartanpara-2023-ijca-922968.pdf
[51]
Barbara F. Sharf. 1990. Physician–Patient Communication as Interpersonal Rhetoric: A Narrative Approach. Health Communication 2, 4 (1990), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc0204_2
[52]
Ben Shneiderman. 1997. Direct Manipulation for Comprehensible, Predictable and Controllable User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(IUI ’97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/SpringerReference_63274
[53]
Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Three Fresh Ideas. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction (2020), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00131
[54]
Heung-yeung Shum, Xiao-dong He, and Di Li. 2018. From Eliza to XiaoIce: challenges and opportunities with social chatbots. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering 19, 1 (2018), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1700826
[55]
Henrik Skaug Sætra. 2024. A Machine’s ethos? An inquiry into artificial ethos and trust. Computers in Human Behavior 153 (2024), 108108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108108
[56]
Marita Skjuve, Ida Maria Haugstveit, Asbjørn Følstad, and Petter Bae Brandtzaeg. 2019. Help! Is my chatbot falling into the uncanny valley? An empirical study of user experience in human-chatbot interaction. Human Technology (2019), 30–54. https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201902201607
[57]
Stefan Stieglitz, Lennart Hofeditz, Felix Brünker, Christian Ehnis, Milad Mirbabaie, and Björn Ross. 2022. Design principles for conversational agents to support Emergency Management Agencies. International journal of information management 63 (2022), 102469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102469
[58]
Irene Sucameli. 2021. Improving the level of trust in human-machine conversation. Advanced Robotics 35, 9 (2021), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2021.1884132
[59]
S. Shyam Sundar and Eun-Ju Lee. 2022. Rethinking Communication in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. Human Communication Research 48, 3 (2022), 379–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqac014
[60]
Ekaterina Svikhnushina and Pearl Pu. 2022. PEACE: A Model of Key Social and Emotional Qualities of Conversational Chatbots. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 12, 4 (2022), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531064
[61]
Laduram Vishnoi. 30/06/2020. Conversational Agent: A More Assertive Form of Chatbots. Towards Data Science (30/06/2020). https://towardsdatascience.com/conversational-agent-a-more-assertive-form-of-chatbots-de6f1c8da8dd
[62]
Sarah Theres Völkel, Ramona Schödel, Daniel Buschek, Clemens Stachl, Quay Au, Bernd Bischl, Markus Bühner, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2019. 2. Opportunities and challenges of utilizing personality traits for personalization in HCI. De Gruyter Oldenbourg. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110552485-002/html?lang=en
[63]
Sarah Theres Völkel, Ramona Schödel, Daniel Buschek, Clemens Stachl, Verena Winterhalter, Markus Bühner, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2020. Developing a Personality Model for Speech-based Conversational Agents Using the Psycholexical Approach. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Regina Bernhaupt, Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller, David Verweij, Josh Andres, Joanna McGrenere, Andy Cockburn, Ignacio Avellino, Alix Goguey, Pernille Bjørn, Shengdong Zhao, Briane Paul Samson, and Rafal Kocielnik (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376210
[64]
Nadine Walter. 2018. Personalized context-sensitive user interaction of in-vehicle infotainment systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universität München, Munich.
[65]
Joseph Weizenbaum. 1966. ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Commun. ACM 9, 1 (1966), 36–45.
[66]
Bruce H. Westley and Malcolm S. Maclean Jr.1955. A Conceptual Model for Communications Research. Audio Visual Communication Review 3, 1 (1955), 3–12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30216728
[67]
Wayne Woodward. 2000. Transactional Philosophy as a Basis for Dialogue in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 12, 3 (2000), 255–275. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233338366_Transactional_Philosophy_as_a_Basis_for_Dialogue_in_Public_Relations
[68]
Austin P. Wright, Zijie J. Wang, Haekyu Park, Grace Guo, Fabian Sperrle, Mennatallah El-Assady, Alex Endert, Daniel Keim, and Duen Horng Chau. [n. d.]. A Comparative Analysis of Industry Human-AI Interaction Guidelines. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.11761.pdf
[69]
Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re-examining Whether, Why, and How Human-AI Interaction Is Uniquely Difficult to Design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Regina Bernhaupt, Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller, David Verweij, Josh Andres, Joanna McGrenere, Andy Cockburn, Ignacio Avellino, Alix Goguey, Pernille Bjørn, Shengdong Zhao, Briane Paul Samson, and Rafal Kocielnik (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376301
[70]
Xi Yang, Marco Aurisicchio, and Weston Baxter. 2019. Understanding Affective Experiences with Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Stephen Brewster, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Anna Cox, and Vassilis Kostakos (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300772
[71]
Yue You, Chun-Hua Tsai, Yao Li, Fenglong Ma, Christopher Heron, and Xinning Gui. 2023. Beyond Self-diagnosis: How a Chatbot-based Symptom Checker Should Respond. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 4 (2023), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3589959
[72]
Nima Zargham, Vino Avanesi, Thomas Mildner, Kamyar Javanmardi, Robert Porzel, and Rainer Malaka. 2024. HASI: A Model for Human-Agent Speech Interaction. In ACM Conversational User Interfaces 2024, Mateusz Dubiel, Luis A. Leiva, Johanne Trippas, Joel Fischer, and Ilaria Torre (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3640794.3665885
[73]
John Zerilli, Umang Bhatt, and Adrian Weller. 2022. How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence. Patterns (New York, N.Y.) 3, 4 (2022), 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455
[74]
Michelle Zhao, Reid Simmons, and Henny Admoni. 2022. The Role of Adaptation in Collective Human-AI Teaming. Topics in cognitive science (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12633
Index Terms
- Crafting Human-AI Interaction: A Rhetorical Approach to Adaptive Interaction in Conversational Agents
Recommendations
Exploring the Impact of Explainability on Trust and Acceptance of Conversational Agents – A Wizard of Oz Study
Artificial Intelligence in HCIAbstractWith advancements in natural language processing and understanding, conversational agents (CAs) have become one of the fundamental modes of human-computer interaction. However, the black-box problem of AI algorithms often results in reduced ...
Human-AI Interaction and AI Avatars
HCI International 2023 – Late Breaking PapersAbstractHuman-Computer Interaction has been evolving rapidly with the advancement of artificial intelligence and metaverse. Human-AI Interaction is a new area in Human-Computer Interaction. In this paper, we look at AI avatars, which are human-like ...
Conversational Agents: Acting on the Wave of Research and Development
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsIn the last five years, work on software that interacts with people via typed or spoken natural language, called chatbots, intelligent assistants, social bots, virtual companions, non-human players, and so on, increased dramatically. Chatbots burst into ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2024
502 pages
ISBN:9798400711787
DOI:10.1145/3687272
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 24 November 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
HAI '24
Sponsor:
HAI '24: International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction
November 24 - 27, 2024
Swansea, United Kingdom
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 121 of 404 submissions, 30%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 209Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)209
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)108
Reflects downloads up to 29 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in