## 4 Discussion  
In this experiment, the subjects communicated with the human-like dialogue system using generative AI. The system behaved differently in three interaction settings. The subjective evaluations of the system and dialogues varied among individual subjects. Focusing on the individual evaluations, a cluster analysis of the links in the evaluations was conducted. Based on the analysis results, the cumulative results of all subjects' evaluations were organized, as shown in Figure 7. According to the cumulative results, the system evaluation items were classified, as shown in Table 3. The \"awkward\" and \"inhuman\" items were excluded from the classification, since they were not related to the positive dialogue evaluations. The irrelevance of \"inhuman\" indicates that the human-likeness of the system was preferred in its dialogues. To identify the properties that influence evaluations, the items in Table 3 are discussed. The subjects' interpretations of the item words are considered with the premise that the system is not human. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Dialogue Evaluation** & **Generally Relational** & **Individually Relational** & **Non-Relational** & **Non-Relational** \\ \hline Fun & Inspiring & Independent & Friendly \\ Easy to talk to & Has personality & & Since \\ \hline It listens & Easy to talk to & Independent & & Friendly \\  & & Since & & Inspiring \\  & & Has personality & & \\ \hline Can have a smooth & & & & Independent \\ conversation & Friendly & Since & Easy to talk to & & Inspiring \\  & & & & Has personality \\ \hline Want to talk about & Friendly & Independent & & \\ other topics too & Easy to talk to & Has personality & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The classification of the system evaluation items. The system evaluation items in Table 3:
* The \"Inspiring\" item was developed to evaluate an attractiveness factor of a friend that provides positive inspiration [28]. The \"Inspiring\" item was only related to the \"Fun\" from the dialogue category. In other words, dialogues with an inspiring partner were fun. This is a reasonable result of a literal interpretation of \"Inspiring\". The property of inspiration was evaluated through the item \"Inspiring\". * The \"Easy to talk to\" item was developed to evaluate a sense of security. An interpersonal relationship with a sense of security means a relaxed relationship without worries or barriers. As shown in previous research on friendships, the sense of security is the most fundamental attractiveness factor of a friend, and the survey item \"Easy to talk to\" best reflects this [28]. The \"Easy to talk to\" item was related to three dialogue evaluations, except for \"Can have a smooth conversation\". The result indicates that the item was most commonly related to positive evaluations, as it was the most frequent and generally relational among the subjects. It is also natural that a sense of security is a fundamental element of the relationship with the system. Similarly to interpersonal relationships, the property of a sense of security was evaluated through the item \"Easy to talk to\". * The \"Friendly\" item was developed with the expectation that a friendly system would be evaluated positively as a dialogue partner. The \"Friendly\" item was related to \"Can have a smooth conversation\", which indicates dialogue capabilities, and \"Want to talk about other topics too\", which indicates a wish to continue the relationship, but not to \"Fun\" or \"It listens\", which involve feelings. It seems that the \"Friendly\" item was interpreted as being collaborative, which refers to the system's dialogue capability to make dialogue easy for the subjects. Compared with being friendly, being collaborative is a more plausible expectation for the system. The property of collaboration was evaluated through the item \"Friendly\". * The \"Independent\" item was developed to evaluate a sense of distance, an attractiveness factor of a friend that maintains a moderate distance [28].