80 likes | 92 Vues
Personality and Believability. Panel at the 2 nd Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents (Virtual Agents 99) The Centre for Virtual Environments University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom 13th September 1999. Believability tradeoffs: B ALANCE.
E N D
Personality and Believability Panel at the2nd Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents(Virtual Agents 99) The Centre for Virtual Environments University of Salford, Salford, United Kingdom 13th September 1999 paolo@ai.univie.ac.at
Believability tradeoffs:BALANCE • What is elicited from user vs.system capabilities • Can go wrong both ways! • System raises too high/complex/… expectations in users • Systems places to high demands on users in terms of competence/ duration of interaction/...
Believability tradeoffs:EXPRESSIVITY • Action expression problem(Phoebe Sengers) • Convey a summary of the “story” behind a given situation, provide clues about ongoing task • E.g.:local expressive behaviour by itself is insufficient for discrimination of current emotional state!(cf. action tendencies, Nico Frijda)
Believability tradeoffs:BELIEVABILITY vs. FIDELITY • Impact of prior knowledge,“folk theories”, prejudices,… on subjective assessment of system performance • Emphasis on believability allows better exploitation of available resources • Emphasis on fidelity (usually) results in higher robustness and better consistency (see next slides)
Believability tradeoffs:ROBUSTNESS • “Brittle depth” vs. “Robust shallowness” • Depth (may be) required for “interestingness” • Lessons from knowledge-based systems design • Semantic vs. Architectonic Space (Nancy Kaplan) • Capitalize on ambiguities/under-determination • Leave space for multiple interpretation by users • Symmetric requirements for system: • Ability to make multiple/different interpretations/appraisals • Meta-reasoning
Believability tradeoffs:CONSISTENCY • Consistent behaviour over time entails predictability and facilitatesrecognition of “personality traits” • E.g.: consistency of problem solving and action selection across different situations (difficult!?) • May be achieved via an“inverse mapping” of dimensions of consistency to system lifeworld/ architecture • “Big 3” (5) traits, action tendencies…
Believability tradeoffs:PERSISTENCE • Persisting consequences of choices, actions, events • “No undo”
SOCIA(L A)BILITIY • Basic requirement for interactivity • integration of system+user into a “bigger whole”: interactive system • How? • E.g. via social psychology models, such as: • Power&Status (T. Kemper) • Emotional Competence (C. Saarni) • Seizure/relinquishment* of control at different levels • Acceptance of broad classes of inputs(recognition of affordances) *(difficult/unusual for system designers)