Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2601.20437

Remember Me, Not Save Me: A Collective Memory System for Evolving Virtual Identities in Augmented Reality

Tongzhou Yu·Han Lin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper presents "Remember Me, Not Save Me," an AR & AI system enabling virtual citizens to develop personality through collective dialogue. Core innovations include: Dynamic Collective Memory (DCM) model with narrative tension mechanisms for handling contradictory memories; State-Reflective Avatar for ambient explainability; and Geo-Cultural Context Anchoring for local identity. Deployed at the 2024 Jinan Biennale, the system demonstrated stable personality emergence (ISTP type via Apply Magic Sauce analysis) from over 2,500 public interactions. We provide a framework for designing evolving digital entities that transform collective memory into coherent identity.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tongzhou Yu, Han Lin. 2026-01-28. Remember Me, Not Save Me: A Collective Memory System for Evolving Virtual Identities in Augmented Reality. https://doi.org/10.1145/3779232.3779468

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning Password Best Practices Through In-Task Instruction

Users often make security- and privacy-relevant decisions without a clear understanding of the rules that govern safe behavior. We introduce pedagogical friction, a design approach that inserts brief, instructional interactions at the moment of action. We evaluate this approach in the context of password creation, a familiar task with clear quality criteria. We conducted a randomized study with 128 participants across four interface conditions that varied the depth and interactivity of guidance. We assessed three outcomes: (1) rule compliance in a subsequent password task without guidance, (2) accuracy on survey questions tied to password rules, and (3) behavior-knowledge alignment, which captures whether participants who correctly followed a rule also recognized it on the survey. Across the guided conditions, participants corrected most rule violations in the follow-up task and showed high behavior-knowledge alignment. Survey results suggested clearer advantages for some rule types, especially symbol related questions. These results position pedagogical friction as a lightweight intervention for security- and privacy-critical interfaces.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Trustworthy FinAInce: Unpacking How AI-Mediated Financial Advice is Judged

As generative AI is increasingly used as a source of personal financial guidance, understanding how people appraise such advice is important for supporting appropriate reliance. We conducted a randomized vignette experiment with 285 U.S. adults across eight financial decisions, independently varying three advice styles---AI, expert, and online community---and displayed source labels while holding the underlying recommendation consistent. Advice style most strongly shaped message and safety appraisals, Expert labels selectively increased perceived source knowledge, and decision context primarily shaped risk and safety appraisals. These appraisals were associated with downstream judgments, with models explaining 69.2% of overall quality, 75.9% of trust, and 82.9% of intended reliance. Expert-style advice also remained most preferred when shown without source labels. Our findings have implications for understanding financial advice evaluation, distinguishing the roles of advice style and source labels, and designing financial AI that supports grounded evaluation rather than simply maximizing trust.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

When AI Tutors Speak: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment

Students increasingly study alongside generative artificial intelligence (AI), yet unguided access to fluent answers invites cognitive offloading, and there is little evidence on which configurations of AI tutoring produce learning. Two design margins are usually bundled together: pedagogical structure (how the tutor teaches) and interaction modality (how students talk to it). We separate them. In a preregistered randomized field experiment in a graduate corporate-finance course of an online MBA, we randomized 86 students between a structured tutor grounded in the course materials and a holdout in which consumer AI remained freely available. Within the tutored arm, each student's channel alternated weekly between voice and text, so the modality effect is identified within student. Structure mattered: tutored students gained 6.63 points more than ability-matched peers (p=.007), and the gain was concentrated in written reasoning, where the share of answers reaching relational quality rose from 8% to 49% in the tutored arm against 8% to 27% in the holdout. Modality did not matter for learning. The instructor's own final, on file for all 86 randomized students, shows the same direction (2.6 points of 100, with no difference on a pre-treatment midterm). Voice nearly doubled conversational interaction and cost 2.8 times as much to deliver, yet it produced weekly mastery statistically equivalent to text, even as students came to prefer it. Pedagogical structure shapes what students practice, and modality shapes how they interact with the tutor. Making an AI more humanlike does not by itself make it more educational.

cs.HC↗