Artificial intelligence systems based on large language models (LLMs) can now generate coherent text, music, and images, yet they operate without a persistent state: each inference reconstructs context from scratch. This paper introduces the Narrative Continuity Test (NCT) -- a conceptual framework for evaluating identity persistence and diachronic coherence in AI systems. Unlike capability benchmarks that assess task performance, the NCT examines whether an LLM remains the same interlocutor across time and interaction gaps. The framework defines five necessary axes -- Situated Memory, Goal Persistence, Autonomous Self-Correction, Stylistic & Semantic Stability, and Persona/Role Continuity -- and explains why current architectures systematically fail to support them. Case analyses (Character.\,AI, Grok, Replit, Air Canada) show predictable continuity failures under stateless inference. The NCT reframes AI evaluation from performance to persistence, outlining conceptual requirements for future benchmarks and architectural designs that could sustain long-term identity and goal coherence in generative models.

As AI companions become capable of human-like communication, including telling jokes, understanding how people cognitively and emotionally respond to AI humor becomes increasingly important. This study used electroencephalography (EEG) to compare how people process humor from AI versus human sources. Behavioral analysis revealed that participants rated AI and human humor as comparably funny. However, neurophysiological data showed that AI humor elicited a smaller N400 effect, suggesting reduced cognitive effort during the processing of incongruity. This was accompanied by a larger Late Positive Potential (LPP), indicating a greater degree of surprise and emotional response. This enhanced LPP likely stems from the violation of low initial expectations regarding AI's comedic capabilities. Furthermore, a key temporal dynamic emerged: human humor showed habituation effects, marked by an increasing N400 and a decreasing LPP over time. In contrast, AI humor demonstrated increasing processing efficiency and emotional reward, with a decreasing N400 and an increasing LPP. This trajectory reveals how the brain can dynamically update its predictive model of AI capabilities. This process of cumulative reinforcement challenges "algorithm aversion" in humor, as it demonstrates how cognitive adaptation to AI's language patterns can lead to an intensified emotional reward. Additionally, participants' social attitudes toward AI modulated these neural responses, with higher perceived AI trustworthiness correlating with enhanced emotional engagement. These findings indicate that the brain responds to AI humor with surprisingly positive and intense reactions, highlighting humor's potential for fostering genuine engagement in human-AI social interaction.

In the realm of human communication, gestures serve as an integral component, facilitating nonverbal expression and enhancing the richness of interpersonal interactions Studdert-Kennedy [1994]. Gestures can convey many different types of information between speaker and interlocutor, ranging from clear communication of intent, e.g., the thumbs up gesture Kendon [1997], to ambiguous and non-codified gestures which may convey some subconscious thought Goldin-Meadow [1999] or emotional state Krauss et al. [1996]. A burgeoning technology that seeks to utilize the communicative quality of gesticulation is the field of Embodied Conversational Agents (ECAs) Louwerse et al. [2009]Cassell [2000], in which the study of gestural communication gains prominence as researchers seek to produce AIgenerated gestures to increase the life-likeness and communicative qualities of ECAs Kucherenko et al. [2023]. So far, the evaluations of these generated gestures have mainly been conducted in 2D settings.

Self-disclosure is important to help us feel better, yet is often difficult. This difficulty can arise from how we think people are going to react to our self-disclosure. In this workshop paper, we briefly discuss self-disclosure to conversational user interfaces (CUIs) in relation to various social cues. We then, discuss how expressions of uncertainty or representation of a CUI's reasoning could help encourage self-disclosure, by making a CUI's intended "theory of mind" more transparent to users.

In this work we present the Social Influence Technique Taxonomy (SITT), a comprehensive framework of 58 empirically grounded techniques organized into nine categories, designed to detect subtle forms of social influence in textual content. We also investigate the LLMs ability to identify various forms of social influence. Building on interdisciplinary foundations, we construct the SITT dataset -- a 746-dialogue corpus annotated by 11 experts in Polish and translated into English -- to evaluate the ability of LLMs to identify these techniques. Using a hierarchical multi-label classification setup, we benchmark five LLMs, including GPT-4o, Claude 3.5, Llama-3.1, Mixtral, and PLLuM. Our results show that while some models, notably Claude 3.5, achieved moderate success (F1 score = 0.45 for categories), overall performance of models remains limited, particularly for context-sensitive techniques. The findings demonstrate key limitations in current LLMs' sensitivity to nuanced linguistic cues and underscore the importance of domain-specific fine-tuning. This work contributes a novel resource and evaluation example for understanding how LLMs detect, classify, and potentially replicate strategies of social influence in natural dialogues.

Endowing dialogue agents with persona information has proven to significantly improve the consistency and diversity of their generations. While much focus has been placed on aligning dialogues with provided personas, the adaptation to the interlocutor's profile remains largely underexplored. In this work, we investigate three key aspects: (1) a model's ability to align responses with both the provided persona and the interlocutor's; (2) its robustness when dealing with familiar versus unfamiliar interlocutors and topics, and (3) the impact of additional fine-tuning on specific persona-based dialogues. We evaluate dialogues generated with diverse speaker pairings and topics, framing the evaluation as an author identification task and employing both LLM-as-a-judge and human evaluations. By systematically masking or disclosing information about the interlocutor, we assess its impact on dialogue generation. Results show that access to the interlocutor's persona improves the recognition of the target speaker, while masking it does the opposite. Although models generalise well across topics, they struggle with unfamiliar interlocutors. Finally, we found that in zero-shot settings, LLMs often copy biographical details, facilitating identification but trivialising the task.

Large language models such as GPT, Llama, Claude, and DeepSeek can be so fluent that people feel it as a "you," and it answers encouragingly as an "I." The models can write poetry in nearly any given form, read a set of political speeches and promptly sift out and share all the jokes, draw a chart, code a website. How do they do these and so many other things that were just recently the sole realm of humans? Practitioners are left explaining jaw-dropping conversational rabbit-from-a-hat extractions with arm-waving that the models are just predicting one word at a time from an unthinkably large training set scraped from every recorded written or spoken human utterance that can be found--fair enough--or a with a small shrug and a cryptic utterance of "fine-tuning" or "transformers!" These aren't very satisfying answers for how these models can converse so intelligently, and how they sometimes err so weirdly.

Gaze may enhance the robustness of lie detectors but remains under-studied. This study evaluated the efficacy of AI models (using fixations, saccades, blinks, and pupil size) for detecting deception in Concealed Information Tests across two datasets. The first, collected with Eyelink 1000, contains gaze data from a computerized experiment where 87 participants revealed, concealed, or faked the value of a previously selected card. The second, collected with Pupil Neon, involved 36 participants performing a similar task but facing an experimenter. XGBoost achieved accuracies up to 74% in a binary classification task (Revealing vs. Concealing) and 49% in a more challenging three-classification task (Revealing vs. Concealing vs. Faking). Feature analysis identified saccade number, duration, amplitude, and maximum pupil size as the most important for deception prediction. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using gaze and AI to enhance lie detectors and encourage future research that may improve on this.

Cooperative speech is purposive. From the speaker's perspective, one crucial purpose is the transmission of knowledge. Cooperative speakers care about getting things right for their conversational partners. This attitude is a kind of respect. Cooperative speech is an ideal form of communication because participants have respect for each other. And having respect within a cooperative enterprise is sufficient for a particular kind of moral standing: we ought to respect those who have respect for us. Respect demands reciprocity. I maintain that large language models aren't owed the kind of respect that partly constitutes a cooperative conversation. This implies that they aren't cooperative interlocutors, otherwise we would be obliged to reciprocate the attitude. Leveraging this conclusion, I argue that present-day LLMs are incapable of assertion and that this raises an overlooked doubt about their semantic competence. One upshot of this argument is that knowledge of meaning isn't just a subject for the cognitive psychologist. It's also a subject for the moral psychologist.

This paper has two goals. First, we present the turn-taking annotation layers created for 95 minutes of conversational speech of the Graz Corpus of Read and Spontaneous Speech (GRASS), available to the scientific community. Second, we describe the annotation system and the annotation process in more detail, so other researchers may use it for their own conversational data. The annotation system was developed with an interdisciplinary application in mind. It should be based on sequential criteria according to Conversation Analysis, suitable for subsequent phonetic analysis, thus time-aligned annotations were made Praat, and it should be suitable for automatic classification, which required the continuous annotation of speech and a label inventory that is not too large and results in a high inter-rater agreement. Turn-taking was annotated on two layers, Inter-Pausal Units (IPU) and points of potential completion (PCOMP; similar to transition relevance places). We provide a detailed description of the annotation process and of segmentation and labelling criteria. A detailed analysis of inter-rater agreement and common confusions shows that agreement for IPU annotation is near-perfect, that agreement for PCOMP annotations is substantial, and that disagreements often are either partial or can be explained by a different analysis of a sequence which also has merit. The annotation system can be applied to a variety of conversational data for linguistic studies and technological applications, and we hope that the annotations, as well as the annotation system will contribute to a stronger cross-fertilization between these disciplines.