Interactive robots are becoming more commonplace and complex, but their identity has not yet been a key point of investigation. Identity is an overarching concept that combines traits like personality or a backstory (among other aspects) that people readily attribute to a robot to individuate it as a unique entity. Given people's tendency to anthropomorphize social robots, "who is a robot?"should be a guiding question above and beyond "what is a robot?"Hence, we open up a discussion on artificial identity through this workshop in a multi-disciplinary manner; we welcome perspectives on challenges and opportunities from fields of ethics, design, and engineering. For instance, dynamic embodiment, e.g., an agent that dynamically moves across one's smartwatch, smart speaker, and laptop, is a technical and theoretical problem, with ethical ramifications. Another consideration is whether multiple bodies may warrant multiple identities instead of an "all-in-one"identity. Who "lives"in which devices or bodies? Should their identity travel across different forms, and how can that be achieved in an ethically mindful manner? We bring together philosophical, ethical, technical, and designerly perspectives on exploring artificial identity.

Driving styles play a major role in the acceptance and use of autonomous vehicles. Yet, existing motion planning techniques can often only incorporate simple driving styles that are modeled by the developers of the planner and not tailored to the passenger. We present a new approach to encode human driving styles through the use of signal temporal logic and its robustness metrics. Specifically, we use a penalty structure that can be used in many motion planning frameworks, and calibrate its parameters to model different automated driving styles. We combine this penalty structure with a set of signal temporal logic formula, based on the Responsibility-Sensitive Safety model, to generate trajectories that we expected to correlate with three different driving styles: aggressive, neutral, and defensive. An online study showed that people perceived different parameterizations of the motion planner as unique driving styles, and that most people tend to prefer a more defensive automated driving style, which correlated to their self-reported driving style.