There's just another panel at 11.30, but if we just wait the first 15 minutes and start at 10.15, that would also be a possibility. So the schedule stays the same. In case the rules come really on point, I'm not sure. We have to be flexible. I'm sorry about it. No, no, no, it doesn't. It's not much we can do. It's not much. Not much we can do. Ford. Thank you. Vielen Dank. E aí Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank.お待ちしておりますスタートします今から15分ほどです10時15分からセッション3を始めますどうぞ休憩してくださいすみません Thank you. Vielen Dank. Obrigada. Thank you. E aí Vielen Dank. Thank you. E aí Thank you. Obrigada. Thank you. Obrigado. Thank you. E aí Obrigado. Vielen Dank. Thank you. Obrigada.... Vielen Dank. Vielen Dank. Tekstet av Nicolai Winther I'm going to go get some food. Thank you.おはようございますエクスパンデータコンフェンス セッション3 コントロール私はゆうちろかつもとですこのセッションを担当していますコントロールは何かとも言えますシステムをコントロールすることマシンをコントロールすること物資をコントロールすることコントロールを失うこと今日の5つのプレゼンテーションはコントロールを非常に違�なる方向からコントロールを取り入れています。クリエーションの練習によって、インタラクティブシステム、物理、ロボティック、そしてエンボディーエクスペリエンスについてです。では、まずは、初めてのプレゼンテーションに行きましょう。まずは、マグダ・ハミルトンです。彼女は、インタラクティブシステムの知らない能力をデザインしますマグダ・ハミルトンさんをお迎えください Thank you. Encountering something whose interior stays close to the viewer. I'll show you how I tried to do that and where it broke. The question comes from Stanislaw Lem Solaris, a novel from 1961 that also gives this piece its name. The ocean in the book covers the entire planet, and the premise is that it's some kind of intelligence. What matters here isn't the premise, it's the situation around it. In the novel, generations of researchers have observed the ocean and cataloged its behaviors, classified the formations, and produced a whole scientific literature which fills the station. None of it has yielded an interpretation. They had the time, the access, and the methods. The description accumulates, the access doesn't. Lamb argues elsewhere that this isn't a problem awaiting a better method, but an impossibility in principle. Assimilation can't reproduce that impossibility, but it can stage it, which means I need a more careful word than mysterious. Unpredictability is about the next state. On its own, it reads as malfunction. Complexity is about how much there is to understand. Exposing more of the system can, at least in principle, make it more tractable. Ambiguity is about meaning. The work withholds an interpretation, so you can supply one. What I'm after is none of those. The system is lawful. You can feel that it's lawful. And the law isn't recoverable within the attention you have. That makes it a property of a relation, not only of a thing, which is useful, because you can build a relation. The first decision was not to stimulate water. Water in real-time graphics has a settled language. However stylized it lands inside a category you already own. So the ocean is a viscoelastic gel. It resists being deformed, holds the load for a beat, and lets go in a wobble rather than a wave. But gel is a category 2, which is why there are two more fields. Memory, the rest position each cell returns toward isn't fixed. It's a slow average of how that cell has recently been pushed. So the surface doesn't come back to the shape it started from because the shape it returns to has itself moved. Intent, cells reach toward internally assigned target heights and that reach decays, motion with no observable external curves. Those are names for fields in a solver, neither one models cognition. Knowing what something is made of doesn't tell you what it's doing. A system that makes patterns invites you to look for the cipher. So the ocean doesn't signal. It works, and the work is made visible. Two suns on scripted paths. The orbit is on rails, not an orbital simulation. And the ocean isn't stabilizing anything. What's computed each frame is the consequence of those positions. The tidal load on every cell. Then the load is split. A small fraction reaches the surface as displacement. The rest is treated by stipulation as the effort of holding position. No counterforce is computed. It accumulates as stress and comes back as glow beneath the surface. It never feeds into the physics. The light makes that computed internal effort visible. When the signs align, it concentrates. When they oppose, it spreads. You can see that something is happening and when it intensifies, nothing turns that into meaning. Both of those run whether or not anyone is watching. That's the effort. It makes the work visible without making it readable. The contact is real. The cursor is a genuine disturbance and the surface response. But the character of that response is governed by an internal state that changes on its own schedule independently of anything you do. It re-parameterizes the same physics. The material properties themselves change. This isn't randomness. Randomness reads as broken. The behavior is lawful. And the response follows from the state. But you're building a model out of responses produced under conditions that can change for reasons that have nothing to do with you. You can't tell whether what you just saw came from your gesture or from a state you cannot observe. The law is real. It just isn't exposed. Three mechanisms across three layers, but the same refusals keep recurring. And they overlap rather than divide neatly. No single layer holds this alone. Strange physics with a legible channel invites decoding. Any constitutive layer that yields a stable explanation becomes the entry point from which the rest gets reduced. Not all of it refuses. There is a terminal, a mission brief, logs from earlier researchers. That frame is legible, so the ocean does not have to be. It sustains the encounter without constituting it. That's a proposition, not a measurement. There is a fourth subsystem. In the novel, my modes are structures the ocean produces that imperfectly copy things near it. And the copies are legible. You see what they're doing. In the simulation, the results vary. Sometimes the form is nothing. Sometimes it catches. Once you recognize the hand, the encounter changes. The question stops being what is this and becomes how well is it doing a hand. And when the hand goes, recognition doesn't. So that's the problem. The moment there is a recognizable reference, you have a stable model for comparison. The encounter becomes legible, not because the system changed, but because you found something to measure it against. The MIMO gave the viewer a stable comparison model. The other mechanisms are designed to deny that kind of closure. Unknowability is a property of the encounter and it has to be altered in the logic, not on the surface. None of these requires randomness. The systems I've described are deterministic. What matters is where you're standing. From the viewer's position, an unsolvable system cannot be distinguished from one that simply remains unsolved. That gap is the design condition and that's the argument I want to leave you with. Thank you. Thank you for a wonderful presentation, Magda. Now is the time for the Q&A. Any questions from the audience? Come on. I prepared one. Yes, please. Naturally, since you're using a computer, there is some internal logic, but you're trying to obfuscate it to the level that to a person, there might as well not be a coherent, understandable internal logic. What do you think the importance of that experience is? Thank you for the question. I think that the main importance here is the boundaries of human cognition and also our relationship with computers and machines, especially in the times of AI. Hi. Yeah, I'd like to expand a little bit on that question as well. I definitely got the link with AI and how this could explain our relationship with AI and the fact that we don't know what's going on under the surface. But I guess there's a difference if we know that there's a logic behind and if there's some sort of randomness. In your example, is there a difference from the viewer's perspective if something is random or not? Because they can't tell. They won't know. It just might as well be random. So is there a difference in or are they told that there's a logic? Like with me struggling with computers, when I'm programming, I know that there's a logic. like with me struggling with computers I when I'm programming I know that there is a logic I can't find the mistake I can't find the book but I know I'll find it if I just keep searching for it but if it's random I won't know so is there a way that the viewer knows what's happening I think the main difference between randomness and unknowability is coherence. In case of random systems, there's no underlying logic, and in case of unknowability, there is a logic. It's just not accessible to the viewer. Of course, the viewer can make models and hypotheses about what they are experiencing, but they are unable to reach that logic underneath. Good. Good. We still have one more question time. Do you have any comments? I'm sorry, I can't see the audience because of the writings. Well, OK, all right. So, yeah. I only have a really practical question. Do you, is it artistic research in a practical sense? Or do you also write texts about this topic? Is it becoming paper or something else? Yes, the artwork became a subject of papers. And this is the first paper here at Expanded. But there are more to follow. Okay. Are they already visible somewhere or do you work on it? Yes, you can read my author's copy of the manuscript on my website, which is in my conference bio. Thank you. Thank you very much. So let's continue with our next presentation.次のプレゼンテーションに入ります次のプレゼンテーションは高文森太です高文森太さんはフェロフルードベースのフィジカルディスプレイを人間のコントロールを通して人間の物理のコクリエーションをご紹介します高文森太さんをお迎えくださいありがとうございます皆さんこんにちは 高文守太です東京エキスラボの教授です Hi, hello everyone. My name is Takafumi Morita. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Tokyo, X Lab. Today I'm going to present my work, MOF Works, a kinetic installation of a ferroclite-based physical display beyond human control through human-material co-creation. Actually, this is my third time participating in ARAS Electronica. I really love this atmosphere. In 2022, we exhibited Seesaw, and last year we exhibited Entangled Liquidity as a part of an exhibition by the Yasaki-Hakurei Laboratory. Across these works, I have continuously explored liquid as an artistic material. So this is MOFRAX. Before going into the details, I'd like to show you a short video of this work. This is a short version. Yesterday I uploaded the full version of video on YouTube. If you have interest, please check it. MOFLAX is a kinetic installation in which the forms and growth of ferrocluid continuously transform. By controlling an array of electromagnets, the ferrocarril rises into circular shapes and generates ripple-like waves. These waves spread across the surface and interfere with each other, creating continuously changing patterns. First, why do I focus on liquid? Liquid is a very distinct material. It has no fixed form, and it continuously changes its shape depending on surrounding conditions. I am particularly interested in this formless and changeable nature of liquid. Liquid has already been explored in many different ways. For example, previous works have used droplets, bubbles, colored liquids, tubes, and various fluid phenomena to create physical and interactive expressions.色の液体、実、そしていろいろなフルイティックフェノメナを作るためのフィジカルとインタラクティブな表現を作ることができました。この作品は、液体がフィジカル表現の豊富な中心となることを示しています。フェロフルイティックフェノメナは、特に面白い例です。マグネティックフィーズによる形を変えることで、メディアアートフィールドで広く発見されています。 and has been widely explored in media art fields. In many iconic works, such as Professor Sachiko Kodama's works, spike-like formations have been a central form of the expression. This leads to the motivation behind more works. Recent computer science has largely developed around the precious control of the digital bits, 0 and 1. However, physical materials, especially liquids, are affected by their own properties and surrounding environments so unpredictable variations naturally emerge. So I started with this question. Should physical materials be controlled with the same exactness as digital bits? Based on this question, I created MOFRACS. Instead of using the conventional spike-like expression of a ferrofluid, MOFRACS uses rounded pixel-like elevation and ripple waves. These ripples spread across the liquid surface and interfere with each other. MOFRAC consists of the container filled with the ferrochlorite and an array of maximum 319 electromagnets. Each electromagnet works like a physical pixel and generates a raised shape on the liquid surface. This is the material selection.水を吸い込み、水面に形を描き出します。こちらが、物理の選択です。私は、フェルフルイドの2つの要素に集中しています。まず、フェルフルイドを使って、低サトラシャルマグネタリゼーションで、普通のスパイクの代わりに、スムーズな、丸い形を作ることができます。普通のスパイクの代わりに、このような形状を作ることができます。2つ目は、低微粗度の水を使って、リップル波をより簡単に発生することを選びました。この材料の選択で、このフェルフルイとそのフェルフルイは、丸いピクセル形状と、リップル表現を続けています。この材料を使って、 shapes and continuous ripple expression. Using these material properties, I designed two main types of fluid animation. The first is raised circular pixel shapes based on relatively discrete pixel control. The second is ripple generation, which creates continuous expressions through wave propagation and interference.リプル・ジェネレーションは、波のプロパガーションとインタフィレンスを通して、常に表現されます。まず、マグネティックラックスして、リップル波を生成することができます。波が表面に広がり、 相互に影響を受けます。 spread across the surface and interfere with each other. So the final pattern is not simply a collection of independently controlled pixels. The surrounding environment also strongly affects the appearance of mockworks. On the left, I use indirect lighting reflected from the white wall. This emphasized the shapes of the laser pixels and ripples. On the light, the natural light becomes the main light source. Because the liquid surface acts like a mirror, its appearance continuously changes depending on the surrounding light and the time of day. So the environment itself becomes a part of the visual expression. Now, I would like to return to the question I introduced earlier. Should physical materials be controlled with the same exactness as digital bits? After working with systems, the liquid, and the exhibition environment, my approach is actually not to eliminate this uncertainty. Instead, I actually incorporate this uncertainty as a part of the artwork. I framed this relationship as human-material co-creation. In MOFUX, the human side designs the magnetic field and animation. At the same time, the material contributes its own properties such as viscosity, lipopropagation, interference, and gradual evaporation. And the environment, including light, temperature, humidity, and time also affects the behavior and appearance of the liquid. Therefore, the final expression is not determined by human control alone. So, it emerges through the interaction among human intention, material behavior, and environmental conditions. Through this relationship, mock works also offer one perspective from reconsidering human-material relationships from the more-than-human perspective. Mock works have been exhibited in several different environments. Through these exhibitions, I observed how visitors engage with the changing behavior of the liquid. Because their appearance changes depending on the viewing angle, visitors often walk around the installation and observe it from different perspectives. Some visitors stay for a long time or return after a while to see how the exhibition has changed. long time or return after a while to see how the exhibition has changed. Some even revisited the work at a different time or different days. The appearance of morph works also changed across exhibitions depending on the surrounding space or lighting conditions. The same work could look quite different depending on how the rig reflected to the surrounding environment. In this way, mock works continue to change depending on where and when it is presented. I see these changes not as something to eliminate, but as a part of the expression of the work. To conclude, Moffrax explores the spherical expression through rounded pixels and ripple interference. Rather than eliminating ascentity, Moffrax incorporates it as part of its expression. Through this approach, I explore human-material co-creation and reconsider our relationship with physical materials. That's all for my presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Actually, I have one question about controls. You allow the materials to escapeコントロールについての質問です。人間のコントロールを逃すために、 物質を使用することを求めるのです。どうやってコントロールを保つのか、 物質にどのくらいを与えるのかを決めるのですか。素晴らしい質問です。実は、私は人間と物質の位置を決めるのが 難しいです。 human material. So before controlling the material regarding my artwork, so firstly I usually observe the material itself. After that I find the unique site including some randomness and unsanitary. So after that I make some animation and control the art space. So the material drives your expression? Yes.アニメーションを作ることで 地球の物理を操作することができます物理があなたの表現を導いているのですねはい他に質問はありますか?はい、どうぞ私の質問は人間のコクレーションと 訪問者が戻ってライトニングシナリオからの インスタレーションを見ることができるのですが coming back and seeing the installation from different lightning scenarios, for example. Did you also think about a visitor, a spectator being able to control actually what is happening with the electromagnets during the installation, or is this something you scraped out by design? Yeah, so to some extent, I designed from the broad direction of the contourness. After that, material is react depending on the surrounding environment or material conditions. So, yes, so, I thought I forgot. Yeah, so, it depends on the situation and the places, so I decided observing the material's conditions. Right, so... Okay, Ehei, you talked about being inspired and working with the material and its properties and being a big part of the material also having its abilities. But the fluid you use this time is specifically made by humans and it's very designed and you optimize the property. And I'm not sure also about the recycling or how to clean the fluid. So how do you work with this fluid which is extremely artificial? Yeah I think a lot of materials have different, many factors that materials have. So, yeah, so, of course, there is some specific situation, but if I think about the, yeah, some space, so it's possible to recycle and circulate, sorry, yeah, it depends on the material, so if I make some artwork with material, so I face the material itself and find the idea, optimize the direction that I want to make. Okay. Yep. We still have one more question time? Anyone else?もう1問ありますか?他にも?では次のプレゼンテーションに移りましょうありがとうございました3番目のスピーカーは高幸徹ですここでDynamics of Talk on a leashを紹介します高幸徹さんにどうぞこんにちは 高幸徹ですすみません 前10分前にスライドを作っていたので準備ができません I was making my slides 10 minutes before, so I'm not ready for this. But okay. Wait. Relax. So. Okay. So, I'm going to my latest artwork, the dynamics of a dog on a leash. Some of you may have seen this in the last year's Ars Electronica festival and this is a chained strange by a chain for like robots and it's trying to attack people and we will watch it from the safe zone and Yeah, it's trying to keep launch to audiences and keep standing up and fall. Finally, it collapsed from overheating. So I'm talking about the concept building history of this project over 15 years. So the title, Dynamics of a Dokonarish, is of course a reference to a famous painting of Giacomo Balla. I changed the term dynamism into dynamics. But the original, the true origin of this project goes back to very different context around 2010. This is it, the Big Dog by Boston Dynamics. So this video was super viral on YouTube, and we were shocked when this robot appeared. And we feel that it's apparently a military-oriented quad-group robot, military-oriented quad-grouped robot and we feel it's the new age of warfare is coming. The autonomous weapons comes to kill us. We imagined it. So many people got scared and frightened from this robot, but at the same time, many people laughed at this video because of this robot's movements. It looks goofy, awkward, and cartoon-like movements. Wait. So, why could we laugh at it?なぜ笑うことができるのか?私たちは安全だと思っていたからです。私たちは隣にいないので、殺害や襲撃を受けたことができません。そのため、当時のロボットとの距離を感じました。 from this robot at the time. At the time, yeah, so I got the idea of the artwork at the time to chain up this robot and exhibit it in front of us in a gallery space. As long as we can keep a safe distance, we can afford to laugh at it or even play with it. But the thing already has enough power to kill us. So what keeps us safe is only a thin, fragile chain of ethics. Yeah. Once it breaks, it's game over. So that's my initial idea of this, as a reaction to this robot at the time. But I was just a humanities student, so I got just an idea. It's a speculative idea or imagination practice. So I need 15 years more until realization. Now this consumer model for robots is available. We can buy it. And also physical AI became a major contemporary context. So I rebooted this idea to make it. But the social context has been changed. At the time, it was distant future, but now it's a present reality. And now in the real warfare, the drones killed soldiers or civilians. So now we don't underestimate the impact of the robots or AI's development. So the original idea, original warning concept is no longer makes sense. On the other hand, the Boston Dynamics robots has different public reactions around 2015. They always shows the kicking demo, but the public reaction has been changed. Don't kick the robot. Some people claimed that it's pity. Don't kick, it's pity, poor robot. So the perspective is changing. Also, my own questions have been changed. This is my previous artwork exhibited in 2018 Ars Electronica. I started making media artist career as a robotics creation. So my theme around this humanoids is how can we make the robots into a real living other by building an interactive relationship, dynamic relationship between human and robots. So these changes influence the actual creation of this, realization of this artwork. So what should I put the new concept is empathic stresses. We feel pity for these robots. It's struggling and it looks painful. But it doesn't feel any pain and we control it. But we project ourselves onto the robots. So this is a theme of this new artwork. Actually, it's not autonomous. It's a big spoiler. Many people believe that it's autonomous robot, but there is a hidden operator. We call them pilots of this. There is a term, the Wizard of Oz method. That's it. People believe this is a, people perceive it's autonomous, but it's actually controlled. Then, but the pilots does the simple direction control with a gamepad-like controller. And the robot itself has a posture stabilization system. So if you kick it, it's trying to bear and stance again. again. So then we restrain by chain and make it entangled to our legs. So there it's a hacking of the posture stabilization system. It causes the動作が動物的に動くことを防ぐために動作を動かすことができるのです。このテクニックで動作を動かすことができると私は思っていました。 the humanoid robots. And I think that's a very good technique. And so I made in the previous work, I made humanoid robots with a gaze interaction and face mirroring. But this robot, this consumer robot, doesn't have any eyes or face. But I believe that I can make people feel it's targeting me, it's looking at me, and stares at me, only by its movement. So we feel intention and the murderous gaze or hatred against us from this robot. And in the artwork, it collapses at the last time. It's not performance. It's actual death of the robot. In the overload performances, the robot's motors heat up, and in its safety systems works, and then it shut down by overheating. So as an artwork exhibition, it's critical. But I found it very impressive, so I changed my plan to make it theatrical performance around 10 minutes. And show it dies in front of them. So we feel the life likeness of this, yeah, the robots function. Yeah, okay, so, this is last slide. Thank you for listening. I'm satisfied with this achievement. The public reactions are very heated up, and some people blame me, condemned me as a robot abuser. But many people comes to this exhibition and many people enjoy this and yeah, get interested. Yeah, I succeeded to prove that robots can scratch our empathy nerve and it meansロボットは エンパティの根を抜けることができるとロボットと動物を 理解できないといけないといけないロボットとの未来のストレスを 準備しなければならない辛いけどストレスがあるそういう作品です。ありがとうございました。ありがとうございます。高幸さん、ありがとうございます。私に1つの質問があります。今、ロボットはパイロットで操作されています。もし変更できるときに、ロボットは完全に自動的に動くことはどうでしょうか? If you can change the robot, can be auto, actually the perfect read autonomous. I gave up. Because I was funded by the government fund, by the cultural ministry of Japan. I have just six months to develop it so we tried but gave up but if you could yeah and I'm still wants to want to make autonomous but on the other hand the pilots are very good at controlling. They have technique and talent of controlling. So I chose to make it performance, live performance. Got it. So thank you very much. Any questions or comments from audiences? Yes, hi. It's That's it. So thank you very much. Any questions or comments from audiences, please? Yes, hi. It's more a comment and a question at the same time, because one of the things that I can see through your work, which is amazing, thank you, is the fact that back then in 2005, when robotics showed the first robot I think people also thought the robot was dumb and it reminds me of the of the difference of the relationship between a Roomba and chat GBT I think people start to have more empathy towards an artificial being, when the artificial being can show some intelligence, because there's also some human feeling of fear when that being is intelligent. So the more intelligent they become, we become more respectful of them, and I think your work is showing exactly that. So thank you for that. Thank you. Comments? Any other questions or comments? Yes, please. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. I was thinking about telepresence and driving Waymo cars or people working in factories, things like this. And this Wizard of Oz factor, I can see the appeal of having it be completely autonomous, but there's also something interesting to think about, that complicated relationship between the human operator and the robot. Can you say more about how you think about that relationship? I can't answer in an interesting way, but I... Can I say about another context of this artwork? I got the honorary mention prize in Pre-Ars Electronica last year, but I originally submitted to a new animation category, but they chose this work as an artificial life and intelligence category. They change, but for me, it's an animation. An animation is a tech technique or technology to grab people's heart and force to feel it's alive. Yeah, so I think that I want to answer to you the same thing. The Roomba or the other robots, we feel we can have some philosophy to treat robots. 로봇을 대신하는 것입니다. 하지만 로봇은 인생을 느끼는 것에 강력한 역할을 합니다. 그리고 저처럼 작가가 이 일을 할 수 있습니다. So this is the, yeah. So I feel responsibility to, why should I make the life like robots? Yeah, it's gonna be stressful. And we, our empathy nerve will be scratched more in the future life. Thank you. Good. Okay, so one last question. Maybe it's a quick one. So you've talked a lot about how audience perceive the robots, but how do pilots perceive the robots? How do they connect to the robots, and how do they connect to the audience through robots? It's like a very broad question which also kind of dwells into whole drone debate, I would say. But in this case, when you operate this dog, you operate the dog, or do you operate the robot, do you operate the machine? Maybe each pilot has different perspectives, but some pilots said they, he project himself into the robot and another one is trying to make the lively action. He built the technique how to make big motions. So it's totally different. Yeah, but of course, they repeat it so many times. So maybe they lose some empathy into the action.多くの回で、ロボットにエンパイアを与えることができるかもしれません。もっとコントロールできるものが変わるでしょう。ありがとうございます。素晴らしいプレゼンテーションはロールシフトのフレーミングの認知についてのVLトーリー問題です強制的な描写と心の不安Payin Linと彼のコリーグにプレゼンテーションをさせていただきますPayinとチームにどうぞ and his colleagues. Please welcome to Pei Ying and his team. Hello. Okay, hello, good morning everyone. My name is Tzu Mu Yang and we are a student group from National Tsinghua University in Taiwan, and I am the main presentation of this group. classical moral dilemma on the trolley problem in VR, transforming it into an embodied aesthetics experience which surfaces the difficulties of being implicated in one's moral decisions. Here are some of the keywords of our project. This project is developed over four months as a project for the XR extended reality course, and it stems from a shared observation that people have difficulties putting themselves into other's shoes. So we choose a classic moral dilemma, the trolley problem to develop on. The classic trolley problem is usually on paper and participants can judge from a distance, disembodied. We have designed RoadShift against this idea. With repeated decision and collision cycle and shifting information, RoadShift attempts to resurface the difficulties of being implicated in once more decisions. Our key design concepts can be summarized into the following points. One, VR perspective taking. VR perspective taking, no, the Proteus effect states that people might shift their behavior and self-perception to the avatar they embodied. In practice, virtual reality works mostly invites audiences to inhabit vulnerable positions to invoke empathy. Rowshift inverts this convention and first gives the audiences the position of agency and then take that role away immediately. Two, Somatic Marker. Our work based on our haptic feedback design on Damasio's Somatic Marker hypothesis, which states that cognition is shaped by perception and environmental interaction. We treat each train collision as a sensory motor event rather than a cognitive task to let the body remember or embody the event, if you will. Three, identity framing. In addition to perspective taking and bodily perception, we've also made the identity's framing itself a manipulatable temporal dimension and reveal narrative information across time. Now, I will briefly go through a structure of the experience. information across time. Now I will briefly go through a structure of the experience. The experience can be summarized into three stages or cycles and an extra stage for it acting as a resolving theme. At the start of the experience, the audience will find themselves on an empty rail track with a track switch lever. After pulling the lever, the audience will be teleported into the cabin as a driver. He will then try to stop the train, but with no prevail. Then there will be a conductor shoving the audience onto the railway tracks as a one-person group, then soon followed by the train's impact or near-miss, depending on the first decision. Then in stage two, just before the decision can be made, a newspaper will reveal that the three men are actually thieves, and one person, the character audience embodied, is a renowned social actor. After the decision is made, the audience will be teleported onto the tracks to experience the second collision. Then in stage three, another newspaper revealed crucial information before the switch. The one person is actually a pharmaceutical executive for profit, and the three men are in reality righteous outlaws stealing medicines for patients. The audience will then make a decision according to their choice. They experience the last collision on the tracks. Finally, in stage four, the audience will meet all the casualties they've caused as ghosts and the survivors together on the platform to resolve the intense emotions and let them reflect on their decisions. Next, let's reflect on our structure. We've organized the cycles into three layers, cognitive layer, embodied layer, and a sensory layer. The pivotal events of each layer happens on different cycles. The cognitive layer is focused on identity framing. We've disclosed more information each cycle. As a result, the audience do not face the same dilemma by shifting logics under different identities. This temporality and accumulated information is what we mean by identity framing. The embodied layer is centered around forced perspective shifts. The experience anchors the perspective shift with a conductor shoving the audience onto the rails. By removing the choice to switch perspectives, we are confronting the audience with a symmetry of deciding to harm and being harmed without consent. This diagram captures the role transitions. The audience will only occupy the driver's perspective at the start of cycle one. Then will be alternated embodied perspectives captures the road transitions. The audience will only occupy the driver's perspective at the start of cycle one. Then will be alternated embodied perspectives between trackside observer and being a victim on the tracks. Finally, the sensory layer is about multisensory saturation. Across the cycles, we are treating the impacts as a sensory motor event to attach a semantic marker to let the body remember. Also, our choice of using halftone aesthetics are worth mentioning. By avoiding a realistic art style, we can prevent triggering traumatic responses between collisions. Using a stylized visual, we are telling the cognitive system that this is a fictional work, while semantic feedback still anchors the body with an intensity. Next, let's talk about the audience reception and their feedback. Roadship was shown to 14 audience members in the controlled settings, and they are asked to complete a questionnaire and pose experience conversation. From their feedback, we can observe three main patterns. and they are asked to complete a questionnaire and post experience conversation. From their feedback, we can observe three main patterns. One, audiences frequently describe physical sensations before discussing the dilemma itself, suggesting that semantic feedback function as an experiential anchor, allowing audiences to revisit the moral situation through embodied memory. Two, audience interpretations vary depending on their engagement with the narrative, and a final decision in stage three shows no dominant strategy. Rather than guiding the audiences, role-shift aims to reveal how personal experience and perspectives can shape ethical decisions. Three, audiences suggest that stylized and exaggerated visuals prove productive. The abstraction allow the audiences to engage with the fictional logic of the work, suggesting that our visual feedback and haptic feedback work together to balance immersion and emotional distance. Upon those feedbacks, we recognize the potential advancements of the project. We are planning on making exhibition-oriented refinements, such as quieter onboarding and accessibility problems such as subtitles. And we are also planning on exploring workshop formats where we can have more discussion and more reflection, and education can be held. Also, although we've done experiments, but the data set size is not sufficient for any statistic conclusions, we are looking to improve narrative and structural clarity for future research. To broadly summarize, RoadShift aims to utilize embodiment, not to generate empathy, but to challenge habitual judgments and encourage audiences to reconsider ethical decisions from multiple perspectives. That is the end of our presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Don't you want to speak something? Is punishment? Okay, all right, yeah. Don't you want to speak something? It's punishment Okay. All right. Yeah, so any questions or comments for this presentation? Yes, please Did you also experiment with hyper-realistic VR experience where it's not a comic like look? I tried, but after we made the decisions and we have discussions with our other professors leading the work, and they suggest that actually our decision of using a cell-like view actually benefits the project, because it can avoid being too immersed or being too afraid to make the moral decisions. Like, the audience will be afraid of making a decision to avoid impact. And maybe that will alter some kind of... That will alter the moral reflections that we don't want in this project. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, please. I'm just wondering, as you said, the main goal was to make the decision feel more real, to close the distance that people have when they decide on paper who they're going to kill rather than when they actually feel it. So wouldn't, in that sense, make it more real if it's realistic because then you're even closer? Or is that then too close for you? In a sense, that is why we're using haptic feedback. And in person, the experience feels a lot more intense even with the stylized visuals. And we can visually see a lot of the audiences shake upon the impact and for the happy feedback. So we actually think that is the right amount of intensity that we are looking for, yes. Great. We still have one more question this time?No?All right.So thank you very much.Thank you very much.And thank you again to all our speakers and thank you for everyone for joining this discussion.So this concludes session three control, and the next AdPaper session will start 11.30, so stay tuned. Thank you. Thank you.