## 4 Discussion  
In this experiment, the subjects communicated with the human-like dialogue system using generative AI in the three types of interaction settings and evaluated the dialogues and the system. The settings of interaction structures changed the system behavior. The dialogue evaluations in the dyadic interaction (with the topic) setting were negative, and the dialogue impossibility was indicated in the free-form comments. In the dyadic interaction (with the subject) setting and triadic interaction setting, the dialogues took place between the subjects and the system. The evaluations were positive on average, and there was no mention of the impossibility of dialogue in the comments. The triadic interaction setting was applied for more advanced interaction with an expectation that the evaluation would be higher in this setting than the others. The results confirmed this partly. The evaluations of the dialogue in the triadic interaction setting were both highly positive and negative, and the system impressions were contrasting. On the other hand, the dialogues in the dyadic (with the subject) interaction setting, which is the basic interaction setting, received positive or not negative evaluations. The results are explained based on the successful or failed construction of the interaction structures, depending on the structure that the subject was oriented toward, as follows:  
Figure 8: The results of the post-dialogue questionnaire regarding the dialogue system impressions in the triadic interaction setting by the triadic interaction high-rating group and the others. * In the case of the dyadic (with the topic) setting, the structure in the system does not include the subject, as shown in Figure 4, and does not match any structure to which the subject belongs. In this case, the structure construction fails between the system and the subject. In the experiment, the subjects were ignored by the system, which talked one-sidedly. In the results, they evaluated the dialogues negatively and commented on the impossibility of dialogue. * In the case that the subject is oriented toward dyadic interaction, the subject intends to construct the structure, as shown in Figure 9. This structure matches the structure in the dyadic (with the subject) setting of the system, as shown in Figure 4, and they can interact well on the successful construction. However, the structure in the triadic setting of the system extends beyond this structure. In this case, the structure construction fails due to the system's undesirable action for the subject. In the experiment, the subjects in the dyadic (with the subject) setting high-rating group would have been oriented toward dyadic interaction. In the results, they evaluated the dialogue in the dyadic (with the subject) setting positively and the dialogue in the triadic setting negatively. Their comments in the triadic setting included discomfort with the dialogue system's inflexibility in persisting with the topic and forcing them to say something that the system wanted. They evaluated the system in the triadic setting as an untrustworthy dialogue partner, awkward and inhuman. * In the case that the subject is oriented toward triadic interaction, the subject intends to construct the same structure of the triadic interaction, as shown in Figure 4. This structure includes the structure in the dyadic (with the subject) setting of the system and matches the structure in the triadic setting. When the structure is included, the structure construction succeeds even if it is something lacking for the subject, and they can interact well to some extent on the successful construction. In the experiment, the subjects in the triadic setting high-rating group would have been oriented toward triadic interaction. In the results, they evaluated the dialogue in the dyadic (with the subject) setting not negatively and the dialogue in the triadic setting positively. They evaluated the system in the triadic setting as a well-listening, trustworthy dialogue partner.