Crossing the Line? The Paradox of Human-Like Design in Conversational Agents

DOI

Since the early development of conversational agents (CAs), human-likeness has been a central design focus. Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of more human-like CAs, including user experience, engagement, and trust improvements. As a result, researchers have proposed guidelines for designing CAs that closely resemble human communication styles. However, a growing body of research argues against excessive human-likeness, citing concerns about setting unrealistic expectations, facilitating overtrust, and enabling manipulation. To mitigate these risks, some researchers advocate for design choices that clearly differentiate CAs from humans, such as using synthetic voices or robotic visual representations to signal their artificial nature. This provocation paper explores the paradox between these two perspectives. Does the very act of making CAs interact in human-like ways inherently contradict efforts to maintain transparency about their artificial nature? We invite discussion on the implications this contradiction holds for the future of CA design.