This work investigates the causal mechanism behind the effect of chatbot personification and persuasion strategies on users' perceptions and donation likelihood. In a 2 (personified vs. non-personified chatbot) x 2 (emotional vs. logical persuasion strategy) between-subjects experiment (N=76), participants engaged with a chatbot that represented a non-profit charitable organization. The results suggest that interaction with a personified chatbot evokes perceived anthropomorphism; however, it does not elicit greater willingness to donate. In fact, we found that commonly used anthropomorphic features, like name and narrative, led to negative attitudes toward an AI agent in the donation context. Our results showcase a preference for non-personified chatbots paired with logical persuasion appeal, emphasizing the significance of consistency in chatbot interaction, mirroring human-human engagement. We discuss the importance of moving from exploring the common scenario of a chatbot with machine identity vs. a chatbot with human identity in light of the recent regulations of AI systems.

Machine psychology aims to reconstruct the mindset of Large Language Models (LLMs), i.e. how these artificial intelligences perceive and associate ideas. This work introduces PhDGPT, a prompting framework and synthetic dataset that encapsulates the machine psychology of PhD researchers and professors as perceived by OpenAI's GPT-3.5. The dataset consists of 756,000 datapoints, counting 300 iterations repeated across 15 academic events, 2 biological genders, 2 career levels and 42 unique item responses of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-42). PhDGPT integrates these psychometric scores with their explanations in plain language. This synergy of scores and texts offers a dual, comprehensive perspective on the emotional well-being of simulated academics, e.g. male/female PhD students or professors. By combining network psychometrics and psycholinguistic dimensions, this study identifies several similarities and distinctions between human and LLM data. The psychometric networks of simulated male professors do not differ between physical and emotional anxiety subscales, unlike humans. Other LLMs' personification can reconstruct human DASS factors with a purity up to 80%. Furthemore, LLM-generated personifications across different scenarios are found to elicit explanations lower in concreteness and imageability in items coding for anxiety, in agreement with past studies about human psychology. Our findings indicate an advanced yet incomplete ability for LLMs to reproduce the complexity of human psychometric data, unveiling convenient advantages and limitations in using LLMs to replace human participants. PhDGPT also intriguingly capture the ability for LLMs to adapt and change language patterns according to prompted mental distress contextual features, opening new quantitative opportunities for assessing the machine psychology of these artificial intelligences.

Existing rhetorical understanding and generation datasets or corpora primarily focus on single coarse-grained categories or fine-grained categories, neglecting the common interrelations between different rhetorical devices by treating them as independent sub-tasks. In this paper, we propose the Chinese Essay Rhetoric Dataset (CERD), consisting of 4 commonly used coarse-grained categories including metaphor, personification, hyperbole and parallelism and 23 fine-grained categories across both form and content levels. CERD is a manually annotated and comprehensive Chinese rhetoric dataset with five interrelated sub-tasks. Unlike previous work, our dataset aids in understanding various rhetorical devices, recognizing corresponding rhetorical components, and generating rhetorical sentences under given conditions, thereby improving the author's writing proficiency and language usage skills. Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate the interrelations between multiple tasks in CERD, as well as to establish a benchmark for future research on rhetoric. The experimental results indicate that Large Language Models achieve the best performance across most tasks, and jointly fine-tuning with multiple tasks further enhances performance.

Although there has been a growing interest among industries to integrate generative LLMs into their services, limited experiences and scarcity of resources acts as a barrier in launching and servicing large-scale LLM-based conversational services. In this paper, we share our experiences in developing and operating generative AI models within a national-scale search engine, with a specific focus on the sensitiveness of user queries. We propose a taxonomy for sensitive search queries, outline our approaches, and present a comprehensive analysis report on sensitive queries from actual users.

Automated dialogue or conversational systems are anthropomorphised by developers and personified by users. While a degree of anthropomorphism may be inevitable due to the choice of medium, conscious and unconscious design choices can guide users to personify such systems to varying degrees. Encouraging users to relate to automated systems as if they were human can lead to high risk scenarios caused by over-reliance on their outputs. As a result, natural language processing researchers have investigated the factors that induce personification and develop resources to mitigate such effects. However, these efforts are fragmented, and many aspects of anthropomorphism have yet to be explored. In this paper, we discuss the linguistic factors that contribute to the anthropomorphism of dialogue systems and the harms that can arise, including reinforcing gender stereotypes and notions of acceptable language. We recommend that future efforts towards developing dialogue systems take particular care in their design, development, release, and description; and attend to the many linguistic cues that can elicit personification by users.

Humor is a central aspect of human communication that has not been solved for artificial agents so far. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly able to capture implicit and contextual information. Especially, OpenAI's ChatGPT recently gained immense public attention. The GPT3-based model almost seems to communicate on a human level and can even tell jokes. Humor is an essential component of human communication. But is ChatGPT really funny? We put ChatGPT's sense of humor to the test. In a series of exploratory experiments around jokes, i.e., generation, explanation, and detection, we seek to understand ChatGPT's capability to grasp and reproduce human humor. Since the model itself is not accessible, we applied prompt-based experiments. Our empirical evidence indicates that jokes are not hard-coded but mostly also not newly generated by the model. Over 90% of 1008 generated jokes were the same 25 Jokes. The system accurately explains valid jokes but also comes up with fictional explanations for invalid jokes. Joke-typical characteristics can mislead ChatGPT in the classification of jokes. ChatGPT has not solved computational humor yet but it can be a big leap toward "funny" machines.

A personification is a figure of speech that endows inanimate entities with properties and actions typically seen as requiring animacy. In this paper, we explore the task of personification generation. To this end, we propose PINEAPPLE: Personifying INanimate Entities by Acquiring Parallel Personification data for Learning Enhanced generation. We curate a corpus of personifications called PersonifCorp, together with automatically generated de-personified literalizations of these personifications. We demonstrate the usefulness of this parallel corpus by training a seq2seq model to personify a given literal input. Both automatic and human evaluations show that fine-tuning with PersonifCorp leads to significant gains in personification-related qualities such as animacy and interestingness. A detailed qualitative analysis also highlights key strengths and imperfections of PINEAPPLE over baselines, demonstrating a strong ability to generate diverse and creative personifications that enhance the overall appeal of a sentence.

Technology companies have produced varied responses to concerns about the effects of the design of their conversational AI systems. Some have claimed that their voice assistants are in fact not gendered or human-like -- despite design features suggesting the contrary. We compare these claims to user perceptions by analysing the pronouns they use when referring to AI assistants. We also examine systems' responses and the extent to which they generate output which is gendered and anthropomorphic. We find that, while some companies appear to be addressing the ethical concerns raised, in some cases, their claims do not seem to hold true. In particular, our results show that system outputs are ambiguous as to the humanness of the systems, and that users tend to personify and gender them as a result.

Virtual assistants such as Amazon's Alexa, Apple's Siri, Google Home, and Microsoft's Cortana, are becoming ubiquitous in our daily lives and successfully help users in various daily tasks, such as making phone calls or playing music. Yet, they still struggle with playful utterances, which are not meant to be interpreted literally. Examples include jokes or absurd requests or questions such as, "Are you afraid of the dark?", "Who let the dogs out?", or "Order a zillion gummy bears". Today, virtual assistants often return irrelevant answers to such utterances, except for hard-coded ones addressed by canned replies. To address the challenge of automatically detecting playful utterances, we first characterize the different types of playful human-virtual assistant interaction. We introduce a taxonomy of playful requests rooted in theories of humor and refined by analyzing real-world traffic from Alexa. We then focus on one node, personification, where users refer to the virtual assistant as a person ("What do you do for fun?"). Our conjecture is that understanding such utterances will improve user experience with virtual assistants. We conducted a Wizard-of-Oz user study and showed that endowing virtual assistant s with the ability to identify humorous opportunities indeed has the potential to increase user satisfaction. We hope this work will contribute to the understanding of the landscape of the problem and inspire novel ideas and techniques towards the vision of giving virtual assistants a sense of humor.

As technology advances, companies continue to push the boundaries with virtual assistants and conversational AI, striving in most cases to more closely approximate real-life person-to-person interactions. The implication is that "more human" is better. AI doesn't need to be more human to serve human needs. It's time for companies to stop obsessing over how closely their AI approximates real people and start focusing on the real strengths that this transformative technology can bring to consumers, businesses, and society. The desire to strive for more humanity within technology is understandable. As a species, we've long taken pleasure in the personification of animals and inanimate objects, whether it's chuckling when you see a dog wearing a tiny top hat or doodling a smiley face on a steamy bathroom mirror.