The curator's reviewTwo photorealistic eyes argue out loud about an everyday moral question you pick - keeping a wallet you found, a coworker taking credit, tipping. The rhetorical move each one is reaching for gets named on screen while it talks, and you can press those names to steer the fight.
You pick a fight from a list of ten, and they are deliberately small: cutting in line, forgetting a birthday, tipping. Nothing about trolleys or lifeboats. Then two enormous photorealistic eyes settle onto a cream background and start disagreeing about it, out loud, taking turns.
The thing that makes this more than a party trick is the labelling. Above and below the pair sits a row of words - STEPPING OUT, CIVIC, MORAL LINE, QUOTE BACK, CONCEDE, INSPIRED - and they light up as the eyes work. So you can see one of them reach for evidence, then try a cultural appeal, then concede a point, in real time. They are not decoration either: press one and you push the argument that way. It is an argument with its own stage directions visible, which is a strange and quite exposing way to watch anyone reason, machine or otherwise.
The makers are explicit that this is not a model left to improvise a debate. Each eye is anchored in a different sense of what makes something worthy, told to open with a lived story rather than a principle, and to climb toward the general only slowly - a structure lifted from sociology about how ordinary people justify themselves when they disagree. That constraint is doing the work. It is why the labels have anything to name.
One honest caveat: the substance lives in the voices, so this needs sound. Muted, you get the choreography - the turn-taking, the moves lighting up, the two thumbs on either side inviting you to take a side - but not the sentences. Bring headphones, pick the coworker who stole your credit, and watch a machine argue in public about it with its tactics showing.
