When AI systems allow human-like communication, they elicit increasingly complex relational responses. Knowledge workers face a particular challenge: They approach these systems as tools while interacting with them in ways that resemble human social interaction. To understand the relational contexts that arise when humans engage with anthropomorphic conversational agents, we need to expand existing human-computer interaction frameworks. Through three workshops with qualitative researchers, we found that the fundamental ontological and relational ambiguities inherent in anthropomorphic conversational agents make it difficult for individuals to maintain consistent relational stances toward them. Our findings indicate that people's articulated positioning toward such agents often differs from the relational dynamics that occur during interactions. We propose the concept of relational dissonance to help researchers, designers, and policymakers recognize the resulting tensions in the development, deployment, and governance of anthropomorphic conversational agents and address the need for relational transparency.
Gulay et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: