There is an ongoing discussion on what makes humans more engaged when interacting with conversational agents. However, in the area of language processing, there has been a paucity of studies on how people react to agents and share interactions with others. We attack this issue by investigating the user dialogues with human-like agents posted online and aim to analyze the dialogue patterns. We construct a taxonomy to discern the users’ self-disclosure in the dialogue and the communication authenticity displayed in the user posting. We annotate the in-the-wild data, examine the reliability of the proposed scheme, and discuss how the categorization can be utilized for future research and industrial development.

Recently, with the advent of high-performance generative language models, artificial agents that communicate directly with the users have become more human-like. This development allows users to perform a diverse range of trials with the agents, and the responses are sometimes displayed online by users who share or show-off their experiences. In this study, we explore dialogues with a social chatbot uploaded to an online community, with the aim of understanding how users game human-like agents and display their conversations. Having done this, we assert that user postings can be investigated from two aspects, namely conversation topic and purpose of testing, and suggest a categorization scheme for the analysis. We analyze 639 dialogues to develop an annotation protocol for the evaluation, and measure the agreement to demonstrate the validity. We find that the dialogue content does not necessarily reflect the purpose of testing, and also that users come up with creative strategies to game the agent without being penalized.