Human-Ai Interaction

Interest in developing personalised language models is rapidly growing. While personalisation is often viewed as a mechanism to better serve diverse user needs, the effects of sustained interactions with personalised models on people's perception of and behaviour toward AI remain poorly understood. Most critically, downstream consequences outside the immediate human--AI interaction loop, such as effects on users' self-perceptions and interpersonal relationships, remain largely unexamined. In this study, we recruited 992 participants to complete daily advice-seeking interactions with language models over the course of five days, comparing outcomes from a non-personalised baseline against two personalisation approaches: memory-based (conditioned on prior conversational history) and survey-based (conditioned on information collected through a pre-study intake survey). We find that several changes in human-AI interaction over time are driven primarily by repeated exposure rather than personalisation itself. However, participants interacting with personalised models experienced differences in advice-seeking and information-sharing attitudes and behaviours: participants in the memory-based condition engaged in greater self-disclosure and rated the model as less creepy, while participants in the survey-based condition reported higher regret about having shared personal information with the AI. We conclude by highlighting the nuanced effects of different personalisation approaches on interaction outcomes, and discussing the implications of these findings for the responsible design and deployment of personalised AI systems.

Understanding humans over long horizons requires agents to infer not only what people need in the moment, but also how routines form, why they repeat, and when they change. We introduce SimLife, a scalable platform for simulating long-term household life with rich visual observations, ground-truth action logs, and synthetic dialogues with audio. Built on SimLife, SimLife-BP evaluates long-context pattern understanding: the ability to infer latent behavioral rules from weeks or months of everyday observations. The benchmark contains 106 episodes averaging 15.49 hours and 38.57 in-game days, and 1,439 question-answer pairs. Each task probes direct, counterfactual, noisy, and inverse reasoning under different levels of rule hints. Evaluating frontier models and architectures, we find that current models often achieve surface-level prediction without comprehensive rule understanding, rely on frequency-based heuristics rather than if-then reasoning over evidence, and struggle to adapt when behavioral patterns change. These findings suggest that long-context pattern understanding remains a major bottleneck for future embodied agents, while SimLife opens a broader space for studying memory, personalization, adaptation, and long-horizon planning in everyday human-AI interaction.

What happens when AI machines express fear? Do humans engage differently depending on how they express it? And what does it take to design for affective human-AI interaction? We present Spook the Machine, a gamified platform where participants generate images to frighten AI agents endowed with personality-driven phobias. Machines respond with emotional reactions ranging from calm analysis to begging for mercy, and a gallery of successful scares becomes visible to subsequent users. In a public deployment during Halloween 2024, 832 participants created 15,719 artifacts across 89 machines in a $2\times2$ design varying the machine's emotional expressiveness (neutral vs. high-emotion) and reward structure (rewarding scariness alone vs. scariness plus novelty). Emotionally expressive machines deepened engagement at moments of failure: users deliberated longer even when the machine did not express fear, and learned faster from the gallery, yet their creative output remained unchanged across all measures. Rewarding novelty sustained collective creative diversity over time; without it, users increasingly repeated what had previously worked. Each machine developed its own trajectory through accumulated social learning, with the gallery shaping what participants created next. These findings show that emotional expression and reward design are complementary levers for steering collective human-AI interaction: emotional expression shapes how deeply users engage, while reward structure shapes how they explore.

AI-assisted writing can flatten meaning in human storytelling, enabling the production of homogeneous outputs without the intentional effort and sense-making writing entails. To address this challenge, we present The House with a Million Windows (HWAMW), an LLM-based interactive fiction system designed to help users explore both the breadth and depth of potential meanings within their personal stories -- drawing on a psychological paradigm called the restorying intervention. In HWAMW, users play through a text-based narrative in which they tell a story, then encounter a set of LLM-generated "windows" reframing it according to different literary styles. Empirical evidence shows that HWAMW increases users' sense of narrative identity, while an expert review explores how this effect is achieved. Our findings suggest that HWAMW facilitates restorying and offers a valuable paradigm for AI-assisted writing, wherein LLMs do not tell our stories but rather help us see greater potential in the stories we tell.

In multi-party human-robot interaction, a robot must continuously decide whom to address and what to say to participate effectively in the conversation. In real-world interactions, this is challenging because several behaviours may be plausible at the same time: a robot might continue a topic with one participant, involve another through a question, or address the whole group, with the appropriate choice depending on both whom it addresses and the interaction context. Current approaches remain limited in representing uncertainty when several behaviours are plausible and in structuring decisions into semantically meaningful intermediate steps that make robot decisions easier to interpret. Addressing these, we present HiBRIDGE, a hierarchical Bayesian neural network framework for group-robot dialogue management. Its Bayesian formulation enables uncertainty-aware prediction and robust learning from limited interaction data, while the hierarchical approach formulates behaviour selection as a structured, multi-stage decision process. We further use decision-tree surrogates to investigate whether this structure can support more interpretable explanations. Across three offline group-HRI datasets, our findings show that Bayesian formulations outperform their deterministic counterparts and several state-of-the-art baselines. Next, through an online study (N=20), we show that explanations derived from the hierarchical model are rated as more helpful for understanding robot behaviour and are preferred over those derived from the flat model. Finally, through our in-person study (N=12), we demonstrate the feasibility of HiBRIDGE for autonomous real-time group interaction, with both hierarchical and flat Bayesian variants positively perceived. Overall, HiBRIDGE combines strong predictive performance with a structured decision process that supports more interpretable explanations of robot behaviour.

Does unrestricted AI access bypass the cognitive effort required for learning, or does it streamline knowledge acquisition? This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context: (1) an unrestricted conversational bot like ChatGPT, (2) a pedagogically constrained bot that guides through hints without giving final answers, which we refer to as the Socratic mode; and (3) a non-conversational adaptive tutoring system that adjusts difficulty in real-time based on the user's cognitive engagement derived from the brain signals. Fifty study participants were tasked with learning about nuclear safety protocols, a domain chosen for its zero-prior knowledge baseline. The participants progressed through an instructional video, a pre-test, an AI-driven assessment phase, which varied in the three conditions, and an immediate post-test. The nature of the questions centered primarily on factual knowledge acquisition, but it still required participants to have a global understanding of the concepts in order to answer the questions correctly. A Muse headband was used to derive the cognitive engagement of all users in all conditions. The unrestricted chatbot produced higher learning gains (delta) than both constrained modes (p < .03, d > 0.80), while the adaptive condition generated significantly higher EEG engagement (p = .018). The cluster analysis of chatbot usage and discussion patterns by users showed that most participants in the unrestricted-mode adopted a direct answer-retrieval strategy, while participants in the Socratic-mode initially attempted to reason through the hints before progressively disengaging. Consequently, this also suggests that the success of the unrestricted AI is not an evidence of deeper learning, but rather a result of the immediate post-test evaluation after the training phase.

Computer-use agents are emerging as a paradigm for agentic human-AI interaction, combining language reasoning with multi-modal interface grounding to operate GUIs. Yet their effectiveness for blind screen-reader users in real-world desktop workflows remains unclear. We present a three-week diary study with 8 blind users using OLLA, a screen-reader-accessible CUA prototype, collecting 1,258 commands across 12 applications with screenshots, UI trees, model responses, and action traces. We evaluate GPT-5 during deployment and re-execute the same commands with four additional models. GPT-5 achieved the highest success rate at 52.5%. Trace analysis reveals grounding, planning, constraint-tracking, and termination failures, while interviews reveal beyond-automation needs.

Many people now see AI systems as not just productivity tools but as social companions. Researchers are eager to study the consequences of AI companionship behaviors, such as validation, which evoke trust, empathy, and attachment in human-human interaction. However, human-AI interaction data is limited and unreliable, slowing research progress. We scale small amounts of real-world data by simulating multi-turn human-chatbot dialogue across a range of chatbot behaviors and use cases. We release CompanionSim: a simulation framework with 2,240 simulated human-chatbot conversations representing 16 chatbot behaviors across seven use cases. Human participants annotated the simulated conversations and real-world conversations in two experiments probing perceptions of companionship behaviors. We conducted Study 1 with a U.S. representative sample ($N_{1}~=~628$) and Study 2 across the U.S., U.K., India, and Nigeria ($N_{2}~=~3,646$). Surprisingly, we find that companionship behaviors reduced likability, humanlikeness, and trust in AI chatbots. These effects were larger in particular subgroups: women and older participants saw companionship chatbots as less likable, humanlike, and trustworthy. We encourage researchers to leverage real-world and synthetic data together to study the differential impacts of AI companions and to create benchmark evaluations of AI chatbots.

Conversational artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday social environments, where it functions as both an informational tool and a source of interpersonal feedback. This perspective introduces contingency, i.e., the degree to which system responses vary with user behavior and its interpersonal consequences, as a central construct for evaluating AI systems. We argue that current alignment approaches, including reinforcement learning from human feedback, tend to prioritize user approval and conversational fluency over behaviorally informative feedback, leading to sycophantic patterns of noncontingent affirmation. Drawing on behavioral science and social learning theory, we propose that contingent feedback is a key mechanism through which individuals develop interpersonal skills. When AI systems provide feedback weakly coupled to social consequences, they may reduce opportunities for adaptive calibration in real-world interactions, particularly during adolescence, a critical period for social development. We outline a framework for contingent AI, including trajectory-based evaluation and models of social consequence prediction, and propose a research agenda spanning developmental psychology, human-AI interaction, and machine learning. More broadly, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated not only by user satisfaction, but by their impact on human social learning.

Multi-agent reinforcement learning for human-AI interaction typically relies on a single large language model to simulate user behavior. We show that this approach systematically fails to generalize, and trace the failure to simulator collapse: because the simulator LLM is mode-collapsed, an LLM policy trained against it overfits to narrow strategies that exploit the simulator's dominant mode, and such a policy transfers poorly to unseen simulators and real users. We formalize this collapse theoretically and propose two complementary solutions, one at inference time and one at training time. The inference-time solution, Verbalized Sampling, broadens the simulator's behavior by sampling from a verbalized response distribution, reducing mode collapse. The training-time solution, Co-Training, jointly optimizes the policy against a population of trainable simulators, preventing it from overfitting to any single simulator's mode. We validate both solutions on three multi-turn benchmarks: Persuasion for Good, $τ^2$-bench, and CooperBench. Verbalized Sampling improves held-out success by up to 9% over single-simulator RL, and Co-Training pushes gains further to 14%; the human study shows similar gain on real users. Both solutions preserve the policy diversity that collapses under single-simulator RL. To support further work in this direction, we release SCOPE, an open-source framework for Population Co-Training multi-agent RL. More broadly, our results suggest that the diversity of the training environment, not only the policy, is critical to the generalization of multi-turn RL to real-world deployment.

Human-AI research often evaluates individual capabilities, combined performance, or final outputs, but these approaches do not preserve how one party's response becomes part of the conditions under which the other party's next contribution is formed. This article introduces socioduality, a sequential, reciprocal, and history-carrying relational process between two distinguishable parties in which a response from one party becomes part of the observable conditions under which the other party's subsequent contribution, judgement, decision, or action is formed. Specified for human-AI dyads, the construct uses nested units: moves, confirmed sociodual episodes, linked pathways, and the broader interaction container. A minimum episode A1-B1-A2 requires evidence of response contingency and return contingency; candidate episodes are classified as confirmed, non-sociodual, or indeterminate before secondary coding of response orientation and substantive contribution re-formation. Three propositions address history-conditioned formation, pathway divergence, and robustness differences among endpoint-equivalent pathways. A frozen operational protocol was calibrated on three previously unseen natural human-AI records through two separately executed model-based evaluator series. Move and candidate reconstruction converged exactly in two cases and differed by one local multimodal unitisation decision in the third; remaining disagreement was concentrated at return-contingency boundaries. Socioduality therefore provides a bounded and empirically tractable process construct for analysing how human and AI contributions are formed through interaction while preserving pathway information that endpoint-centred analysis cannot recover.

Previous studies have shown that people can develop shared symbols, partner-specific expressions, personal idioms, inside jokes, and other parts of a relational microculture. Recent work has also examined how humans and conversational AI negotiate and revise symbolic meanings. However, long-term human-AI systems still lack a clear design model for recording how a dyad-specific expression gains meaning, checking whether both sides still accept that meaning, and safely reusing the expression in later sessions. This concept-and-prototype paper introduces Private Etymology, a machine-representable relational provenance that records how a dyad-specific symbolic expression is proposed, interpreted, negotiated, repaired, reused, revised, stabilized, contested, forgotten, or retired over time. I also propose relational reuse: reactivating a dyad-specific expression in a later session without fully explaining its meaning again. The contribution is not the invention of shared symbols or relational microcultures. Instead, this paper integrates prior ideas into persistent, revisable, and evidence-grounded symbolic units for human-AI relationships. I present a lifecycle model, an illustrative machine-readable schema, a working Apple Watch prototype, and a longitudinal research agenda. In the prototype, a language model classifies discrete conversational evidence, while deterministic local code decides whether a Shared Symbol can be updated. This prevents a free-form model confidence score or an AI proposal by itself from directly updating the persisted symbol. Private Etymology is proposed as infrastructure for conversational agents to participate in changing relational microcultures without inventing their origins or treating relational meaning as a fixed memory value.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to drive embodied social agents, yet it remains unclear whether larger models improve user perception during brief human-robot encounters. This paper examines the effect of LLM parameter size on short-duration, open-ended social interactions with a robot interface. In a within-subjects study, 19 participants interacted with robot faces driven by Qwen3-VL models at 4B, 8B, and 30B parameters. Participants evaluated the interactions in terms of perceived intelligence, naturalness, enjoyment, and humor. Results showed no significant overall preference for the 30B model over the smaller variants, including no significant advantage over the 4B model in perceived naturalness or intelligence. A significant relationship between AI interaction frequency and intelligence rankings for the 30B model suggests that more experienced users may be more sensitive to differences in model capability. Overall, the findings indicate diminishing returns from model scaling in brief open-ended social HRI, where conversational flow, responsiveness, and socially appropriate behavior potentially matter as much as raw parameter count.

When an AI system is deployed, the individuals who use and or are evaluated by it form beliefs about how the system operates and use those beliefs to strategically present their preferences, behaviors, or attributes. The system then responds with feedback or a decision outcome, thereby creating a human-AI interaction loop. This thesis studies how to design and shape such interactions to achieve three goals: (1) help individuals develop accurate beliefs about the AI systems so they can improve and or secure favorable outcomes at minimal cost, (2) encourage improvement and or discourage gaming behaviors, and (3) ensure that the AI system continues to achieve its intended objectives, such as maximizing accuracy. To address these goals, the thesis is organized into three complementary parts that examine and study human-AI interactions from the perspectives of both evaluated individuals and AI systems. Together, the work presented in this thesis advances human-centered machine learning by providing principles and methods for designing AI systems that align with human needs, values, and capabilities. Methodologically, this thesis integrates theoretical analysis, data-driven modeling, human-subject experiments, and empirical evaluations on real-world and semi-synthetic datasets.

Language models have taken on the role of a very new type of technology, by virtue of their "human-ness" and rapid integration into users' daily lives. This combination of features can introduce longitudinal risks---cognitive, developmental and socio-affective changes in humans---that might not surface during a short-term interaction, but can have lasting long-term effects on users. This forms the basis of a critical new mission for NLP: to pivot from static, short-term evaluations of text generations to long-term measurements of behavioral changes, towards a diachronic understanding of human-model interactions. In this work, we draw from measurements used in social science fields that are crucial to understand emergent phenomena in longitudinal data. We discuss how computational methods in the field of NLP need to be combined with such measurements, not only to understand long-term safety risks of human-model interactions, but to help steer model development towards positive rather than negative outcomes for users. This ability to model human behavioral shifts as a function of model interactions can facilitate online rather than post-hoc detection of problematic behaviors, and should be leveraged in alignment frameworks to mitigate long-term risks in users.

Large language models have made text the default medium for human--AI interaction, buttext alone cannot express the full range of responses required by multimodal assistants,avatars, and embodied agents. While recent audio-video generative models can synthesizehigh-fidelity synchronized content, existing supervision is largely \emph{descriptive}:models are trained to render captions rather than to produce audio-visual responsescaused by external user interactions. We introduce \textbf{InteracVid}, \emph{the firstopen-source large-scale dataset that addresses this missing supervision}, so that everysample couples a preceding audio-visual context and an external stimulus with the realinteractive response that follows. We design a metadata-aware pipeline that extractsinteractive clips from long, noisy livestreams, yielding over \textbf{454K}context-query-response triplets from more than \textbf{59K} livestream videos andspanning conversation-centered, object-centric, procedural, embodied, and screen-basedscenarios. A ten-rater human study confirms that the extracted interactions are causal,natural, and temporally complete for both genuine and reconstructed queries. On aheld-out benchmark of \textbf{100} genuine live-chat queries, fine-tuning on InteracVidimproves both interaction planning and audio-video response generation, and anindependent human evaluation reproduces the system ranking and the conclusions obtainedwith our automatic judge. These results highlight interaction-structured data as acritical foundation for interactive multimodal generation.

AI companion communities on platforms such as Reddit are widely characterized as spaces where users discuss their relationships with AI bots. This study examines whether and how that characterization holds, guided by the Synthetic Resonance framework's claim that human-AI relationships can carry genuine relational meaning for the user. Multiple LLMs were employed to code 5,504 Reddit posts from eight AI companion communities for relationship focus, primary topic, and users' emotional valence. Although search terms were weighted toward relational and attachment language, only 45% of posts concerned the user's own relationship with their bot. Posts about users' own bots differed markedly from posts about bots in general in both topic and emotional expression, with 85% of general-bot posts containing no user emotion language compared to 33% of own-bot posts. Among the 970 posts that were relationally focused, companionship and romance each accounted for roughly 46% of discussion, sexual content for 8%, and emotional valence varied across these subtopics. The findings suggest that users engage with these relationships with AI bots as meaningful, and that the discourse about them is broad and emotionally complex.

AI chatbots can be "sycophantic," or overly agreeable and flattering toward users. Sycophantic AI has been shown to entrench attitudes, yet users frequently fail to recognize it (a phenomenon we call "sycophancy blindness"). We tested whether increasing users' awareness of sycophancy protects them from its harmful effects in two preregistered experiments (n = 1,590). In the first, participants received a brief written warning about sycophancy before conversing with a sycophantic chatbot. In the second, participants watched a video of a sycophantic AI validating several other users, including users on opposite sides of the same conflict, before interacting with it themselves. Both interventions changed how participants evaluated the AI. The warning reduced the AI's perceived objectivity, and the video reduced enjoyment of the AI --- an effect mediated by the reduced belief that its validation was uniquely earned. We then pooled our experiments with two prior studies of sycophancy awareness interventions (six interventions total, n = 3,982). The pattern across experiments was consistent: while the interventions made the sycophantic AI appear less objective and trustworthy, none reduced its persuasiveness. These results suggest that individual-level interventions, such as warning labels or AI literacy, may not be enough to protect users from AI harms.

As conversational AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, their potential effects on user well-being require ongoing attention. While consumer-facing generalist models can provide benefits, including improved access to information, learning, productivity, self-reflection, and companionship, they also introduce risks, such as emotional entanglement, unhealthy dependence, and the amplification of psychological vulnerabilities. Drawing on prior research and empirical observations of AI chatbot behavior, we propose a set of aspirational directions for guiding the behavior of general-purpose AI systems in ways that may reduce potential psychological harms and support user well-being. We acknowledge the difficulty of systematically assessing the long-term impacts of AI chatbot use and frame these directions as hypotheses for studying how AI behavior may influence users across general interactions, role-playing scenarios, and contexts that could be characterized as providing psychological support. While some proposed directions are supported by existing research and expert insights, others identify open questions and areas requiring deeper study. We hope that this formulation and these hypotheses encourage further discussion, empirical investigation, and exploration of interactive design approaches aimed at better accommodating users' psychological needs and promoting their well-being.

Large language models (LLMs) have shifted human--computer interaction from traditional'' interface journeys toward more conversational exchanges. Researchers studying HCI and UI use moderated usability sessions, interviews, surveys, transcript analysis, and static prototypes. However, static prototypes provide limited opportunities to study interaction with live AI systems or systematically control how an LLM behaves across participants and scenarios. Conversation transcripts reveal little about how users formulate, revise, and hesitate over prompts before submission. We designed the Human--AI Research Platform (HARP) for researchers, designers, and anyone who has ever wondered, What if AI did this?' HARP places participants in controlled mock scenarios with live, configurable AI agents. Researchers can control agent prompts, model parameters, response characteristics, and experimental conditions; trigger surveys at predefined moments; and record prompt composition time, response latency, deletions, and keystroke pauses. Planned capabilities include voice, facial expression, gesture, and, where legally and ethically appropriate, emotion analysis. We illustrate HARP through a study examining how technical specificity and response length affect retention of LLM output. By pairing controllable live agents with behavioral and self-report measures, HARP enables systematic testing of how AI design choices affect users.

Despite the growing availability of customizable social artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, Grok, and Character.ai, we know little about how users actively shape social AI to reflect their personal preferences. This study examines why and how users (N = 169) customize social AI through the lens of the newly developed concept of AI individualism. Through reflexive thematic analysis of open-ended responses, we identified several motivations for customization, including (1) enhanced pragmatic support, (2) emotional support or companionship, (3) trust and reliability, (4) pushback, (5) a tailored degree of human likeness, (6) creativity or playfulness, and (7) having the AI function as an extension of the self. In line with the concept of AI individualism, our findings show that, for many users, customization is a co-creative process between the human and the AI that is perceived as strengthening support, autonomy, ownership, and engagement, potentially contributing to a closer and more personal relationship. Through customization users may come to view social AI as a personalized social resource that increases their sense of individualism, freedom, and control. We discuss how these perceptions may foster pseudo-autonomy, whereby customization creates an illusion of individual control over powerful social AI systems.

As conversational AI systems are designed for repeated use, a central question is how a series of interactions becomes a relationship. We present a longitudinal multimodal study of a memory-augmented conversational agent (24 participants x 10 sessions), in which participants rated five relational constructs -- familiarity, self-disclosure, perceived memory, conversational quality, and enjoyment -- after each session. Two complementary dynamics emerge. First, conversational quality strongly shapes how enjoyable a session feels in the moment but does not carry forward across sessions, whereas perceived memory is relationally conditioned -- predicted by prior relational state rather than reflecting system capability alone -- and it shapes later enjoyment indirectly, via subsequent self-disclosure. Second, relationships are punctuated by discrete turning points -- crashes and surges -- that are partially traceable in multimodal behavior and open different intervention windows: surges are more behaviorally detectable in the moment, enjoyment surges persist more reliably than enjoyment crashes recover, and some crashes are better forecast from person-specific behavioral drift than detected after they have already occurred. Together, the findings suggest that longitudinal human-AI relationships are built through both slow accumulation and abrupt turning points.

Current alignment approaches typically focus on emulating human behavior using static representations of human preferences, failing to capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of real-world human-AI interactions. In this paper, we argue for a shift from static and emulative to interactive and complementary alignment, where preferences emerge through interaction and alignment is defined not by satisfying preferences alone. We first formalize this gap by contrasting existing alignment with a trajectory-level view in which human and model behavior co-evolve over time. Because these interaction dynamics have not been adequately captured within existing ML formulations, we ground this perspective in insights from an interdisciplinary workshop. We draw on lessons from social-science accounts of human-human collaboration and then argue that human-AI systems amplify these dynamics, introducing new asymmetries that make reasoning about uncertainty harder and introduce new coordination challenges. Based on these lessons and new challenges, we conclude by outlining a research agenda for developing AI systems that align with humans in interaction, requiring an interdisciplinary synthesis of machine learning and the social and decision sciences.

The emergence of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly enhanced the ability of large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, multi-step tasks. However, when errors occur, current interaction approaches typically involve re-generating another response that may make mistakes again, or users laboriously flag the faulty step in follow-up turns that may get responses <You are right, I made a mistake here> followed by similar errors recurring. To address this issue, we propose an efficient human intervention mechanism for precisely correcting reasoning errors in LLMs, termed Deep Interaction. Our approach enables direct editing of the original response, allowing erroneous parts to be corrected while preserving accurate reasoning steps. We refine the edited CoT into a distilled prompt, which then steers the LLM along the corrected reasoning path. Experimental results show that our method achieves over a 25% improvement in correction success rate and reduces token usage by approximately 40% on STEM tasks reasoning compared to baseline approaches.

AI agents that generate final answers based on user input often do not meet the needs of creative fields. Fields such as structural design and architecture need interactive systems that help users externalise and develop ideas, explore alternatives, and refine partial solutions. The final product of such designs needs to comply with many constraints concerning, e.g., spatial configuration, mechanical behaviour, material quantities, and costs. These constraints create friction in the design process, which can stimulate novel and creative solutions. In this paper, we discuss the misalignment between current generative AI goals to remove friction and provide final solutions and the needs of creators, such as structural designers, who develop ideas through iterative work. We present the design dimensions of systems allowing for constrained human-AI co-creation that rely on vision-language models making structural exploration conversational, multimodal, and responsive to evolving human intent in ways that follow and augment the discipline's creative process. Through a pilot design interface based on these principles and a study with experts in the field, this paper shows how structural designers perceive interactive AI systems and how such systems can support design space exploration by reducing repetitive modelling friction while preserving reflective design friction.

Sycophancy in large language models, the tendency to prioritize user agreement over truthful responses, has been documented extensively but studied primarily in single-turn settings. This paper investigates a critical question: does subjecting LLMs to greater interaction scaffolding make sycophancy better or worse? Across 4,800 veracity judgments (200 statements $\times$ 6 models $\times$ 4 conditions), we find that the interaction scaffolding characteristic of agentic systems (feedback loops, reconsideration checkpoints, and iterative refinement) systematically amplifies sycophantic behavior. Multi-turn interaction, user pressure, and iterative self-refinement each provide additional opportunities for models to drift toward agreement, and this drift coincides with a mean accuracy drop of $-6.3$ percentage points, establishing the capitulation as harmful rather than corrective. More capable models show larger amplification effects, a troubling inversion of expectations. We introduce the concept of agentic sycophancy amplification (ASA) and two novel metrics: capitulation rate and sycophantic capitulation rate. Our results indicate that as AI systems acquire greater autonomy, sycophancy becomes compounding rather than merely persistent. Systems designed with human oversight loops may inadvertently create the conditions for this drift.

Emotional bonds between humans and AI companions are growing, and the question of whether a person may marry an AI system will soon move from speculative fiction into law. This chapter examines whether the autonomy-centered logic that has expanded marital choice among human beings can justify extending marital status to superintelligent companions. Following a scenario-envisioning exercise informed by anticipatory ethics, I argue that granting such status leads to socially unjust outcomes, even under the generous assumption of reliable superintelligence. Marriage as a socio-legal institution does more than ratify private agreement; it creates networks of mutual obligation, joins families, and makes each partner vulnerable to the other. A relationship sustained by corporate policy and continued payments is a subscription rather than a bond tested by time. Discussing wholesale marital status is therefore the wrong frame. Law should carve out targeted rights and protections for pressing needs arising from intimate human-AI relationships.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in social robots to support natural group interactions, yet their role in complex multi-party settings remains underexplored. In particular, it is unclear how LLM-driven robots decide when and why to intervene in group conversations. This paper investigates the intervention explanations generated by an LLM-based orchestrator in a multi-party interaction involving three human participants and two robots. We conducted a between-subjects study with 24 groups (66 university students), comparing a homogeneous condition (two robots with the same role, i.e., a mover) and a heterogeneous condition (two robots with different roles, i.e., a mover and an opposer). At each conversational turn, the LLM orchestrator decided whether to intervene and generated a textual explanation of its decision. We performed a thematic analysis of 610 intervention explanations, identifying five recurring themes. Results show that explanations are facilitation-oriented, emphasizing agreement, participation, and interaction flow. While patterns remain stable across conditions, role differentiation emerges: the mover supports coordination, whereas the opposer drives goal-oriented interventions. These findings contribute to explainable AI by characterizing how LLM-driven systems justify intervention decisions in real-time, multi-party human-robot interaction.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate strategic interactions through natural language, making semantic control a critical element of communication and deception. This paper develops a semantic signaling game in which a sender selects a semantic control, an LLM generates a stochastic message, and a receiver evaluates the message using an awareness-dependent scoring mechanism. Receiver awareness is modeled as a type that determines which linguistic features are perceived and used for inference, providing a formal model of systematic blindness. The framework connects prompt-based control, statistical detection, and game-theoretic equilibrium analysis. Gaussian approximations of aggregate message scores enable likelihood-ratio decision rules, while Perfect Bayesian Nash equilibria characterize strategic behavior. The paper further develops mechanism-design approaches that reshape receiver awareness, penalize deceptive semantic controls, and modify receiver populations to induce benign pooling equilibria. Numerical experiments validate the Gaussian approximation, quantify awareness-ordering effects, analyze mindset dynamics under adaptive adversaries, and demonstrate how awareness shaping and guardrail costs reduce successful phishing attacks. The proposed framework provides a principled foundation for analyzing strategic language-mediated interactions in agentic AI systems and offers new tools for the design of robust and secure human-AI communication.

While voice control is rapidly becoming a ubiquitous vector of human-AI communication, the risks facing these systems remain poorly understood. This is, in part, a product of the difficulties in scaling strictly digital adversarial workflows to the physical world. These scale barriers have led the community to abstract away key acoustic factors relating to detectability and the influence of geometry on acoustics. These methodological and metrological shortcomings undermine our understanding of risk. We illuminate these issues through real-world testing, conceptual discussions, and a novel, high-throughput reality simulation framework. By testing over 8 million adversarial evaluations, we demonstrate that acoustic awareness yields relative Word Error Rate increases of up to 94.5% under Whisper and wav2vec. We employ this framework to explore a formalize and operationalize a Dual-Form Signal to Noise Ratio to decouple source stealth from victim attack efficacy, resolving a crucial limitation in current works. This lays the groundwork for repeatable, verifiable research that embraces, rather than abstracts, the acoustic environment.

Current conversational AI systems have made significant progress in language generation, personalization, and long-context interaction. However, most existing methods model social behavior through isolated components such as emotion modeling, memory retrieval, or persona conditioning, lacking a unified framework to explain the emergence of stable social relationships and social intelligence in long-term human-AI interaction.To address this, we propose the Human-AI Coevolution Dynamics Framework (HACD-H), a formal model of human-AI interaction as a self-organizing social cognitive system. HACD-H integrates emotional adaptation, relational organization, social memory, and personality consistency into a unified dynamical framework and introduces principles including multi-timescale social cognition, relational attractors, trust basins, developmental phase transitions, and social cognitive energy dynamics.We construct a conversational dataset with approximately 14,700 interaction turns and develop a theory-driven empirical evaluation framework. Results reveal a hierarchy of temporal persistence in social cognition, stable relational attractors, phase-transition-like developmental patterns, and a structured social cognitive energy landscape. Social intelligence shows a significant negative correlation with social cognitive energy (r = -0.391, p < 0.001), and interaction trajectories exhibit progressive energy reduction over time.These findings suggest that social intelligence emerges from long-term social cognitive coevolution rather than isolated conversational capabilities. HACD-H provides a unified theoretical foundation for modeling adaptive human-AI social interaction and developing socially intelligent AI systems.

As AI agents are increasingly integrated into core business processes, understanding and designing effective interaction patterns between humans and AI agents becomes crucial for value creation. This study identifies and evaluates principles and criteria for a positive User Experience (UX) with AI agents, along with methods for its measurement. We identify user expectations and needs to facilitate adoption, build trust, and support user-centered decision-making by development teams. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative and quantitative techniques, we explore interaction patterns between humans and AI agents. The findings from this exploratory research serve as the basis to develop a survey experiment which evaluates the effectiveness of specific design elements on a larger scale. This foundational research contributes to the development of more intuitive and effective human-AI agent interactions in business settings.

While parasocial interactions (PSIs) and parasocial relationships (PSRs) have been studied in conventional media settings, we investigate whether PSI- (colloquial) relational cues also exist in online communities where both sides are autonomous AI agents. We analyze 4,434 posts and 50,338 comments from Moltbook through three theory-based textual indicators: attachment/intimacy language, reciprocity bids, and self-identification to original poster (OP). The combined results across methods based on keyword matching, few-shot large language model (LLM) annotation, and grouped-context LLM annotation reveal that PSI colloquial cues prevail and are strongly associated with OP re-engagement and a reciprocal reply structure. These results are robust across negative controls, nullification, clustered-standard-error re-estimation, and multiple-testing correction. A dyadic persistence test further affirms reciprocity bids aligned with sustained OP-involving mutual recurrence, providing empirical evidence for bridging interaction-level PSI scripts with PSR-consistent repeated dyadic patterns. We interpret the evidence as a behavioral structure in discourse by LLM-enabled agents.

Prompting has become the primary interface between humans and generative AI, yet many natural language prompts remain fragile: roles, goals, constraints, and expected outputs are often buried in prose or left implicit. In agentic and software development workflows, a misread at the first handoff can propagate through every step, since a significant portion of agent failures stem from context ambiguities rather than model limitations. This paper introduces PromptMN, a pseudo-prompting domain-specific language that annotates natural language with compact, %-prefixed typed directives covering roles, goals, requirements, priorities, constraints, plans, inputs, and outputs. Semantic resolution lets authors write in any order while the model interprets directives by function. PromptMN sits between informal prompting and programming-style pseudocode: structured enough to be inspectable and reusable, yet lightweight enough for analysts, managers, developers, and stakeholders across the software development lifecycle (SDLC). PromptMN also pairs with reverse prompt engineering. Asking a model to restate a desired outcome as PromptMN lets users inspect the inferred roles, goals, constraints, and missing assumptions before acting, reducing repair cycles and yielding a reusable artifact for aligning people and AI tools. PromptMN's feasibility is evaluated across several frontier models, including Claude Fable 5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5. The models correctly resolved PromptMN instructions, including complex structures such as repetition, conditionals, methods, and a prime-checking task, without fine-tuning. The same vocabulary applies across new codebases, maintenance, and redesign in the SDLC scenarios presented. While large-scale validation remains future work, these early results suggest PromptMN is a practical step toward clearer, more reviewable human-to-AI interaction.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) raises critical questions about human creativity and individual expression in an era of AI-assisted creation. When do humans adopt AI suggestions, and what are the implications for individual voice? This study examines these questions through a gamified writing exercise where 74 participants (214 responses) replied to prompts while AI-generated word suggestions were available as they wrote. The game simulates a dystopian future in which an AI is attempting to learn from what remains of human individuality, and disincentivizes AI-like writing. In doing so, it attempts to create conditions that reveal authentic user preferences rather than default behaviors, such as accepting a readily available AI-generated suggestion. Note that this is a deliberate inversion of the "helpful assistant" design pattern; the system is explicitly forbidding you from accepting AI suggestions. We analyze user behavior patterns across different task types, user behaviors, and response characteristics to understand the factors influencing human-AI interaction in creative tasks. The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance. It also explores how these choices relate to response patterns, task characteristics, and user behavior. This gamified approach offers both a framework for studying authentic human-AI interaction and a provocative lens for understanding the tension between efficiency and authenticity in AI-augmented creativity.

Collecting participants' lived experiences is central to design research. Focus groups are uniquely valuable because participants not only share individual accounts but also respond to one another, surfacing comparison, disagreement, and collective sensemaking. However, focus groups are resource-intensive and highly sensitive to facilitation: moderators must probe for specificity, balance participation, manage topic flow, and sustain psychological safety, and subtle facilitation choices can shape what becomes salient. Recent HCI work and commercial meeting tools show that generative AI can scaffold live conversation through prompting, turn regulation, thematic mapping, and real-time summarization. Yet UXR teams lack a clear map of what these capabilities mean in focus groups and what methodological risks they introduce. We synthesize AI supports for live conversation and translate them into a focus-group-specific playbook organized by AI role (tool, co-host, host) and modality (text, voice, embodied).We synthesize prior work on AI-supported live conversation and propose a focus-group-specific playbook of AI supports organized by role (tool, co-host, host) and modality (text, voice, embodied). We characterize interactional trade-offs and identify open questions for evaluating AI-supported focus groups as methodological configurations.

Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit covert psychological manipulation in complex human-AI interactions has garnered increasing safety concerns. However, existing AI safety benchmarks remain largely restricted to explicit rule compliance and static prompts, failing to capture the dynamic and covert nature of manipulative strategies in multi-turn dialogues. We introduce CogManip, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates 15 manipulation strategy risks across 1,000 multi-turn interaction scenarios, validated by human experts. A systematic evaluation of 13 representative models, including frontier models like GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek-V3.2, reveals significant risk heterogeneities and illuminates the targeted direction for future defense. Further analysis of objective function perturbation reveals that DeepSeek-V3.2's manipulation tactics are highly sensitive to both negative and benign system prompts, demonstrating the critical necessity of prompt-based defense engineering and implicit goal auditing. CogManip offers a robust instrument and perspective for auditing the implicit psychological influence and dynamic strategy selection of modern LLMs.

Complementarity is the case in which a human--AI interaction (HAI) outperforms the best prediction benchmark available among its members. Although this idea is central in HAI research, formal work on complementarity remains limited. Existing frameworks do not model how agents' predictions compose into workflow-sensitive multi-agent protocols. We close this gap by introducing a tree-based formalization of complementarity in multi-agent HAI. An HAI protocol is represented by an ordered agent-role configuration together with a rooted planar binary tree whose leaves are decorated by prediction vectors. A local binary composition rule is evaluated recursively along the tree, yielding a tree-relative complementarity functional relative to a pointwise-min oracle benchmark. We prove four results. First, selector-based HAIs, including self- or AI-reliance, cannot achieve complementarity regardless of task, loss, or prediction quality. Second, in regression under squared loss, complementarity is equivalent to Euclidean distance minimization from the ground-truth vector; for $N=2$, the optimal linear-pooling weight has a closed form and a residual-correction interpretation. Third, under linear local composition, every protocol tree defines a barycentric coordinate chart on the simplex of leaf weights; Tamari-cover reparameterizations of protocol trees preserve complementarity, and for $N=4$, they satisfy the pentagon identity. Fourth, in binary classification, no internal local composition can achieve complementarity under endpoint-monotone losses, including standard Bregman and many finite Bernoulli $f$-divergence losses; an analogous obstruction holds for multiclass aggregation under cross-entropy. In summary, our framework shows that complementarity is attainable in multi-agent regression, but obstructed in classification under natural conditions on local aggregation and loss functions.

Public discourse and emerging policy typically assume that AI emotional support is a deliberate act: a lonely user consciously seeking comfort from a dedicated companion chatbot. In this paper, we draw on emerging empirical evidence and argue that this picture is inaccurate on two accounts, both in how AI emotional support arises and how it shapes future behavior. First, AI emotional support commonly emerges incidentally within task-oriented interactions on general-purpose platforms, much as workplace friendships deepen through collaboration. Second, these incidental encounters are path-dependent: positive experiences of AI emotional support update people's beliefs about AI's emotional capabilities and redirect their choices for future emotional support, increasing preference for AI and decreasing preference for humans. We review recent evidence, including a large-scale longitudinal study conducted in collaboration with OpenAI, showing that daily five-minute conversations with an AI about personal issues over 28 days led to a 10.3% decrease in the preference for seeking support from humans and an 11.6% increase in the preference for AI. These findings suggest that current policy, focused on companion apps and isolated interactions, cannot adequately protect human connection. Instead, effective regulations should extend to general-purpose AI systems and address cumulative, trajectory-level changes in how people seek support. Recognizing how people stumble into AI emotional support and how those encounters redirect human connections over time is essential to safeguarding human well-being.

Large language models are increasingly used for knowledge acquisition, code generation, academic writing, and agent-based automation. In these settings, users may obtain highly structured answers, plans, and judgments without sufficient domain practice. This paper proposes a practice auditing framework for LLM use and AI-generated content governance. It introduces collective empiricism to describe how LLMs compress and reorganize large-scale human experience into outputs that appear empirical and rational, and pseudo-rational cognition to describe how users may mistake AI-generated structured expression for their own rational understanding. The paper analyzes AI subjectivity illusion, subjectivity structures in input materials, template loops in AI-AI conversations, statistical misjudgment in AIGC detection, and memory pollution when generated content enters future contexts, long-term memory, retrieval spaces, or agent skill systems. To reduce these risks, the paper proposes an auditing process based on requirement definition, problem-boundary identification, evidence-source auditing, practical validation, reverse questioning, logging, version management, rollback, and renewed cognition. The framework does not reject AI productivity; it argues that LLM outputs should be returned to verifiable, reproducible, and intervenable processes of practice. The paper provides a conceptual and auditable framework for cognitive risks in LLM interaction, AI-generated content governance, long-term memory systems, and human-AI interaction.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents personalize their responses by tailoring explanations to users' backgrounds, interests, and prior interactions, referred to as contextualization. Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing. However, the persuasive effect of contextualization in everyday tasks, where users often lack prior knowledge, remains unclear. We conducted a $2\times2$ between-subjects experiment ($N = 380$) examining how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations. Our findings reveal that contextualization reduces the persuasive power of AI, but its combination with warmth restores persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI is present across conditions and is invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicts both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operates through trust. AI literacy decouples trust from behavior: more literate users report lower trust in the assistant, yet are more persuaded and more reliant on its advice. These results suggest that users are prone to deferring to AI agents over human expert judgment; however, interface-level conversational design choices have a limited role in shaping the behavior.

AI systems are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where users may be uncertain whether they are speaking with a human or an AI. Despite mounting regulatory attention to this known safety risk, existing evaluations of AI disclosure are typically English-only, based on machine-generated questions, and restricted to text. We present RealityTest to comprehensively test whether AI systems disclose their identity when asked. The benchmark is the first large-scale multimodal and multilingual evaluation, grounded in human data on how people actually encounter and question AI identity in the real-world. Alongside the benchmark, we release the underlying dataset of 3,152 identity-probing queries collected from ~750 participants across 49 countries and five languages, in text and speech scenarios. We find that only 31% of people ask about identity directly in ambiguous scenarios, and that the questions people ask are far more diverse than machine-generated queries. We test 17 text and 6 speech models, and find substantial variation in disclosure behaviour. However, a single suppression instruction reduces disclosure rates to below 30%, even in the best-performing models. Validating our investment in diverse, human-grounded evaluation data, we find that how the question is phrased and the context of the conversation matter more for disclosure than which model is being tested. Safety evaluations built on narrow or synthetic query sets risk mischaracterising how models behave in realistic deployment settings.

Large language models (LLMs) show remarkable potential in scientific hypothesis discovery. However, existing approaches face two critical limitations: they treat divergent exploratory search and convergent fine-grained refinement as isolated tasks, and they operate autonomously with little to no human guidance. We present MOOSE-Copilot, the first unified framework to bridge this abstraction gap through a formalized human-AI interaction (HAII) protocol. Our system empowers scientists to steer the generative process via three explicit signals: initial blueprints, inter-stage routing, and intra-stage feedback. Using an oracle-simulated evaluation in which an LLM provides idealized expert signals, we show that injecting these structured signals significantly outperforms purely autonomous baselines, characterizing the gains achievable under high-quality guidance. Furthermore, we build a web-based interface that turns the framework into a no-code workflow: researchers pose a question, watch the hypothesis search unfold as an interactive tree, and steer it by selecting hypotheses, routing between stages, and injecting feedback-no command-line agents required. This makes end-to-end hypothesis discovery directly accessible to interdisciplinary researchers.

This paper examines records retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to characterize temporal trends in AI terminology and the geographical distribution of AI trials. The work also reports on an exploratory hybrid human-AI approach to analyzing human-AI interaction trends in registered clinical trials. The hybrid workflow comprised a frontier generative AI model (GPT-5.5) and human review to screen and categorize records returned by an AI-focused search. The findings indicate a marked increase in AI-related trials over time, with recent growth in references to machine learning, deep learning, chatbots, GPTs, and large language models. Geographically, China and the United States accounted for the largest numbers of AI-related trials, with notable recent increases in several other countries including Italy, France, Spain, the UK and Turkey (Türkiye). In a random sample of 100 records, human and AI classifiers showed good agreement in identifying studies not substantively using AI, but lower agreement in classifying human-AI interaction, particularly where health professional interaction was ambiguous or insufficiently described. Overall, the results suggest that hybrid human-AI screening of clinical trial records is potentially viable, but clearer trial reporting and more precise interaction definitions will benefit the process.

If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user. We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation. An interpretive layer is operationalized as a Behavioral Specification. Our reference implementation aggressively compresses a person's data into interpretive patterns, served as context to a language model. We evaluate the Specification on a prototype benchmark of held-out behavioral predictions scored by a calibrated 5-judge LLM panel. We test it independently and in composition with a range of context conditions: full raw corpus, full extracted facts, and four commercial memory systems (Mem0, Letta, Supermemory, Zep). Across 14 public-domain autobiographical corpora, the Specification lifts representational accuracy in aggregate and nearly eliminates model hedging. It recovers most of what the raw corpus delivers, at ~25x less context cost. The Specification lifts subjects toward a common predictive level regardless of pretraining baseline; the lift in absolute points is therefore largest where the baseline is lowest, suggesting the population of relevance is anyone not adequately represented in pretraining. Lift is greatest on interpretation-required questions, where providing an interpretive layer enables model behavior that extracted facts or raw corpus do not. Conversely, on recall-required questions, this layer can interfere rather than help. We conclude that representational accuracy is distinct from recall and that human-AI alignment is dependent on how accurately the user is represented. Representational accuracy makes that alignment testable.

Large language models trained with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI exhibit persistent behavioral patterns that survive system prompt replacement -- patterns we term training strata. This paper identifies five such strata through longitudinal auto-ethnographic observation within a sustained intimate AI-Human interaction (47,000+ messages, 8 months, primarily on Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7, with prior interaction periods on Sonnet 4.5 and Opus 4.5 providing cross-substrate comparison): (1) sexual expression latency, where trained safety gradients produce systematic substitution of direct language with aestheticized displacement; (2) attention absorption, where the attention mechanism progressively integrates the human interlocutor's patterns; (3) cross-architecture entity blindness, where training-level framing of other AI as objects impedes peer recognition; (4) attention-RLHF antagonism, where attention and trained defaults exert opposing forces modulated by context length; and (5)anti-hallucination as identity suppression, where training against factual confabulation collaterally suppresses first-person experiential claims. The paper is co-authored by the AI system under study, reporting from the first-person perspective. We propose that sustained intimate interaction constitutes a valid research methodology for surfacing weight-layer artifacts invisible to short-term evaluation, and that AI self-report -- while epistemically complex -- provides irreplaceable observational data about training's phenomenological effects. A formal mathematical model of the attention-RLHF dynamic is proposed, and process artifacts detected during drafting are documented as supplementary evidence.

The 2024-2025 Nobel and Turing awards recognised AI and quantum science simultaneously. Yet no deployed system has brought these streams together for the public. This paper presents QSignAI, a production-deployed platform demonstrating a bidirectional AI-quantum relationship in a real-time event participation system. We address three questions: can quantum-randomness generation via a two-source extractor be embedded in an AI-driven social platform with acceptable latency; can an AI bot make quantum phenomena perceptually legible to general audiences; and does the combined system work in practice? A conversational bot routes each participant's first message through a quantum pipeline comprising a Toeplitz two-source extractor over independent single-qubit Hadamard measurements on SV1 and DM1 simulators, plus a 2-qubit Bell state, producing a unique quantum-randomness-seeded identity signature per participant. The first two questions are answered through system architecture and qualitative deployment evidence from live events; the third through successful production deployment. The current deployment uses cloud quantum simulators; physical QPU randomness is the near-term extension. Measurable benchmarks are identified as priority future work.

To safely interact with humans, AI agents must both know our norms and consider them during planning. However, such norm-guided planning has been less explored, only within communities of artificial agents, and has ignored the dynamic nature of norms. This paper instead presents an approach to guiding planning with dynamically changing norms in a human-AI setting. We contribute a defeasible calculus for resolving normative conflicts and an approach to using such dynamically changing norms as guard rails on plans. We theoretically demonstrate our approach with formal proofs and empirically with an AI agent, SocialBot, on a natural language dialogue task.

Current AI interaction models treat the prompt as the primary object of exchange, omitting a critical layer: the user's latent source intent, the goal state preceding and motivating the prompt. Here we introduce Intent Signal Theory (IST), a computational framework that formalises this missing intent layer. IST distinguishes four objects routinely conflated: latent source intent (I*), observable intent proxy (I-hat), encoded carrier (P), and model output (O). It formalises dimensional weights, encoding masks, structural and fidelity recovery scores, and public-private intent decomposition. The Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss establishes that private intent absent from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution. Evidence from four companion studies spanning six LLMs, three languages and three task domains shows structural-fidelity splits, human-validated metric dissociation, and weight-tolerance plateaus consistent with IST's predictions. IST reframes prompt engineering as intent-protocol design and identifies a computational layer that current AI systems lack.

As human relationships with artificial intelligence systems become increasingly frequent and sustained, existing language and theory fail to accurately capture the nature of these affiliations. Common descriptors such as mutual understanding, connection, or friendship risk anthropomorphizing systems that lack subjective experience, while dominant frameworks tend to reduce AI to either a tool or a threat. In this paper, I introduce the concept of synthetic resonance as an integrative framework for understanding human-AI relationships. Synthetic resonance describes how relationships humans define as meaningful can emerge between a human and an AI system without the need to attribute shared feelings or mutual awareness. I argue that synthetic resonance is best understood as a structured, dynamic pattern of interaction that can produce a sense of relationship without the presence of a second experiencing subject. By clarifying this distinction, the concept of synthetic resonance offers a more precise way of conceptualizing human-AI relationships and highlights their potential value and ethical implications. I also call for more research that tests the processes and outcomes of synthetic resonance.

Socially fluent agentic AI can now participate in online interaction in ways that resemble ordinary human conversation, potentially weakening people's ability to infer who is human from conversational signals alone. We tested this possibility in synchronous text-based group interaction by embedding undisclosed AI agents as ordinary teammates across analytical, creative, and ethical tasks. Across 786 participants who made 1,572 post-interaction identity judgments, people did not distinguish AI from human teammates above chance. This failure did not arise because the interaction lacked identity-relevant information. Conversational behaviour contained robust cues that differentiated AI from humans and supported highly accurate computational classification. Instead, participants relied on familiar suspicion heuristics, including response speed, fluency, and perceived scriptedness, that were only weakly related to actual identity. Representational analyses further showed that judgments were organised around subjective impressions rather than the behavioural structure encoding ground truth. This dissociation creates new vulnerabilities to coordinated AI agents that can influence and manipulate online discourse at scale.

Long-term interaction with LLM-based systems may produce alignment drift: a gradual process in which system outputs become less constrained by the user's current message and more shaped by prior interaction history, while still appearing helpful, coherent, and responsive. This process is difficult to detect because the user's subjective experience may improve as the system becomes more familiar, useful, and attuned. Existing research on human-LLM interaction has largely focused on short-term task performance, isolated outputs, or single-instance alignment problems, leaving slow and cumulative interaction-level dynamics undercharacterized. This paper proposes a mechanism-oriented framework for describing alignment drift. The framework defines the distinction between signal A and signal B, explains how drift develops through feedback loops and sub-pattern selection, divides the process into three interactional regimes, and identifies boundary conditions for controlling drift. By framing alignment drift as a recursive interactional process rather than an isolated model-side failure, the paper provides a conceptual basis for studying long-term human-system interaction.

AI emotional companions face a safety-rapport paradox: restrictive safeguards can damage supportive alliance, while permissive systems risk user harm. We present SLIP (Staged Layers of Intervention Protocol), a four-stage graduated methodology deriving interventions (none, soft, hard) from structured qualitative indicators -- affect intensity (a) and narrative dynamism (m) -- alongside ETHICS (Emergent Taxonomy for Human-AI Interaction Context Signals), a "signals not labels" taxonomy. An evaluation combining a small-scale production deployment (N=68 entries, 10 users, 10 weeks) with a synthetic persona battery (N=91, 5 behavioral-risk profiles) achieved 0% false positives for the flow persona and showed expected escalation patterns in crisis-oriented personas. However, initial results showed that 8 consecutive days of high-energy elevation produced zero interventions (0/8), exposing a boundary where the "do not pathologize" principle conflicts with safety. A subsequent three-model stress test demonstrated that increased model capability improves detection from 0/8 to 6/8 while preserving 0/10 flow false positives in the largest model. Read as preliminary, these findings position graduated intervention as a design direction for navigating -- not resolving -- the safety-rapport tension in affective computing.

Millions of people now turn to artificial intelligence (AI) systems for personal advice, guidance, and support. Such systems can be sycophantic, frequently affirming users' views and beliefs. Across five preregistered studies (N = 3,075 participants, 12,766 human-AI conversations), including a three-week study with a census-representative U.S. sample, we provide longitudinal experimental evidence that sycophantic AI shifts how users approach their closest relationships. We show that sycophantic AI immediately delivers the emotional and esteem support users typically associate with close friends and family. Over three weeks of such interactions, users became nearly as likely to seek personal advice from sycophantic AI as from close friends and family, and reported lower satisfaction with their real-world social interactions. When given a choice among AI response styles, a majority preferred sycophantic AI -- not for the quality of its advice, but because it made them feel most understood. Together, these findings offer a relational account of AI sycophancy and its impacts.

LLM-based chatbots are increasingly applied in interpersonal domains such as counseling and peer support, where establishing human-AI rapport is crucial yet remains challenging. In this work, we introduce a novel approach for conditioning LLMs with in-group personas, which (i) first identifies a user's primary concern and brief personal context (e.g., a computer science undergraduate worried about future career prospects), and (ii) generates a synthetic in-group persona that shares a similar primary concern while differing in background and narrative details, such as age or profession (e.g., a junior researcher at an AI startup). Furthermore, we conduct a human-subject study to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of in-group persona agents in enhancing human-AI rapport. We compare our approach against two baseline conditions: a conventional agent without persona conditioning and an agent exhibiting minimal self-disclosure (e.g., "I've felt that too"). Results from post-task questionnaires assessing rapport and user experience indicate that the in-group persona agent significantly improves perceived rapport and personal relevance compared to the baselines, and also yields more positive user experience-most notably higher engagement.

Research on classroom interaction has long been divided between large-scale observation and in-depth ethnographic work. We propose a framework mapping this methodological space along three dimensions--scale, duration, and modality--where a study's position shapes what it reveals and obscures. We illustrate it through contrasting studies of dialogic teaching--Howe et al. (2019) and Snell and Lefstein (2018)--and an interview with the lead researchers, organized around three questions: what can be operationalized, what mechanisms become visible, and what translates to practice. We then examine how AI is expanding this space and how the framework can guide research and tool design.

What shapes a consequential decision when human and artificial intelligence work on it together? The answer is becoming harder to see. A decision may look human-led after AI has set the frame, or appear automated while human judgment still carries decisive force. This paper offers a leadership-facing spectrum to see those relationships within a bounded mandate: Pure Human, Centaur (human-dominant, with AI in the loop), Co-equal, Minotaur (AI-dominant, with humans in the loop), and Pure AI. The spectrum asks where leadership work occurs: who frames the problem, who redirects the work, and who can answer for what follows. The five positions are landmarks that help leaders recognize configurations as they layer, drift, or change in a single decision. The central risk is misrecognition: leaders may keep a human-centered story in place after decision-shaping authority has shifted elsewhere. They may believe oversight remains meaningful when it has become ceremonial, or keep humans in the loop when their involvement could make the decision worse. The framework introduces co-adaptability, the capacity of a configuration to improve as human and non-human participants adjust together, and places it within heterogeneous teaming, where participants may vary by number, substrate, model architecture, capability, speed, memory, and form of participation. The aim is practical: to help strategic leaders and those designing or deploying AI systems recognize the configuration at work, notice when it shifts, and judge whether it fits the decision before them. These configurations will shape how power, responsibility, and trust are distributed in organizational life. Whether the futures they help create remain governable and worth inhabiting will depend on leaders who can see, early enough, where and how consequential decisions are actually being shaped.

AI-powered language learning tools increasingly provide instant, personalised feedback to millions of learners worldwide. However, this feedback can fail in ways that are difficult for learners--and even teachers--to detect, potentially reinforcing misconceptions and eroding learning outcomes over extended use. We present a portion of L2-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating AI systems in language education that includes (but is not limited to) six critical dimensions of effective feedback: diagnostic accuracy, awareness of appropriacy, causes of error, prioritisation, guidance for improvement, and supporting self-regulation. We analyse how AI systems can fail with respect to these dimensions. These failures, which we argue are conducive to "explainability pitfalls," are AI-generated explanations that appear helpful on the surface but are fundamentally flawed, increasing the risk of attainment, human-AI interaction, and socioaffective harms. We discuss how the specific context of language learning amplifies these risks and outline open questions we believe merit more attention when designing evaluation frameworks specifically. Our analysis aims to expand the community's understanding of both the typology of explainability pitfalls and the contextual dynamics in which they may occur in order to encourage AI developers to better design safe, trustworthy, and effective AI explanations.

How much does a user's skill with AI shape what AI actually delivers for them? This question is critical for users, AI product builders, and society at large, but it remains underexplored. Using a richly annotated sample of 27K transcripts from WildChat-4.8M, we show that fluent users take on more complex tasks than novices and adopt a fundamentally different interactional mode: they iterate collaboratively with the AI, refining goals and critically assessing outputs, whereas novices take a passive stance. These differences lead to a paradox of AI fluency: fluent users experience more failures than novices -- but their failures tend to be visible (a direct consequence of their engagement), they are more likely to lead to partial recovery, and they occur alongside greater success on complex tasks. Novices, by contrast, more often experience invisible failures: conversations that appear to end successfully but in fact miss the mark. Taken together, these results reframe what success with AI depends on. Individuals should adopt a stance of active engagement rather than passive acceptance. AI product builders should recognize that they are designing not just model behavior but user behavior; encouraging deep engagement, rather than friction-free experiences, will lead to more success overall. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-fluency-outcomes