## 4 Discussion
Positive evaluations were based on well-constructed interaction structures. The system's inappropriate behavior in failed structures decreased the quality of the dialogues and damaged the impressions of the system. The interaction structures in the system settings should match the structures intended by the subjects, whether the structures were dyadic or triadic. Under the matching and successful construction, the system fully demonstrated its dialogue capability and behaved pleasantly with the subjects. Figure 9: The interaction structure desired by the subjects who oriented toward dyadic interaction with the dialogue system. By switching interaction structures to adapt to users' demands, the behavior of systems becomes more appropriate for users. For example, if a user wants to be listened to for relaxation, this user wants to interact in a dyadic interaction structure between just the user and a system without focusing on any topic seriously. The system should behave in a dyadic setting as a casual listener following casual changes in topics. If a user attempts to discuss a topic to solve a problem, this user wants to interact in a triadic interaction structure between the user, a system, and the topic. The system should behave in a triadic setting for a positive \"It listens\" evaluation as an active listener. In some cases, being fixed in a simple and unbreakable structure can be a better choice for systems. The setting of the basic dyadic interaction structure, which is easy to construct, resulted in moderately positive evaluations from most of the subjects. On the other hand, the setting of the advanced triadic interaction structure was effective in improving the evaluations when the construction succeeded. Superior evaluations can be expected in more advanced structure settings, including further social factors. Systems should choose better responses in diverse situations. The perspective of choosing the desired interaction structure could help in responding to situations. The system's social communication capability to behave appropriately in adapted interaction structures enables the building of more trustworthy relationships. In this experiment, the sample size of 13 subjects was small for statistical verification, and the reliability of the results was limited. The effects of the interaction structures in the generative AI-driven system were demonstrated to some extent; however, further verification is needed. In a future study, a test of a system that adapts to users' demands, as described in this paper, is planned to verify its effectiveness. Generative AIs continue to evolve. ChatGPT has been updated from 3.5 to 4, and it responds more skillfully. More advanced language capabilities will refine the response of the system and provide participants with enjoyable conversations. In addition, the emotional expression function was active, with mainly positive expressions during the dialogues. Although the effect in non-emotional dialogues was merely that the system was perceived as natural in this study, handling emotions is important in terms of addressing individuals. Emotional expression functions should be explored with affective computing technologies, including human emotion recognition and sentiment analysis, which aim to identify and express emotions and respond intelligently to human emotions [29]. Furthermore, it is necessary to note the risks associated with AI dialogue systems. AI technology has been discussed in terms of social and ethical risks that may undermine people's autonomy, privacy, and equity. Systems that include AI technology need to be developed ethically and safely for users [30; 31; 32]. Human-like AI dialogue systems, adapted to persons, will become comfortable partners in daily life. However, they also involve these risks, so their development should be ethical.