Holding the Line: A Study of Writers' Attitudes on Co-creativity with AI
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the attitudes and perceptions of writers towards co-creativity with AI systems in the context of storytelling and creative writing.
- The researchers conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with writers to understand their perspectives on the use of generative AI models in the writing process.
- The study aimed to shed light on the challenges, opportunities, and ethical considerations surrounding the integration of AI into the creative writing workflow.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines how writers feel about using AI-powered tools to assist with their creative writing. The researchers interviewed a group of writers to understand their perspectives on this emerging technology. They wanted to learn about the potential benefits, concerns, and ethical issues that writers see when it comes to incorporating AI into the writing process.
The goal was to get a better sense of how writers view the role of AI in creative activities like storytelling and writing. By understanding the attitudes and perceptions of this group, the researchers hope to provide insights that can inform the development and deployment of AI systems in the creative writing field.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 20 professional writers. The participants represented a range of writing genres and experience levels, including fiction, nonfiction, and screenwriting.
During the interviews, the writers were asked about their general attitudes towards AI, their experiences (if any) with using AI-powered writing assistants, and their perspectives on the potential benefits and drawbacks of integrating AI into the creative writing process. The researchers also explored the writers' views on the ethical implications of co-creativity with AI systems.
The interview data was analyzed using a thematic analysis approach to identify the key themes and patterns in the writers' responses. The findings revealed a spectrum of perspectives, from those who were open to and excited about the possibilities of AI-assisted writing to those who were more skeptical or resistant to the idea.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insights into the mindset of writers regarding the use of AI in creative writing. However, it is important to note that the sample size is relatively small, and the participants were primarily from the United States. Expanding the study to include a more diverse set of writers from different cultural and geographical backgrounds could yield additional insights.
Moreover, the study focused on the writers' perceptions and attitudes, but did not directly assess the impact of AI-powered writing assistants on the creative output or the writing process. Further research could explore the practical implications of AI integration, such as its effects on the quality, originality, and efficiency of the writing.
Additionally, the study did not delve deeply into the specific ethical concerns raised by the writers, such as issues around authorship, intellectual property, and the potential for AI-generated content to perpetuate biases. A more comprehensive examination of these ethical considerations would be a valuable addition to the research.
Conclusion
This study offers a nuanced understanding of writers' attitudes towards co-creativity with AI systems. The findings suggest that the integration of AI into the creative writing process is a complex and multifaceted issue, with writers expressing a range of perspectives and concerns.
The insights from this research can inform the development of AI-powered writing tools and the design of interaction paradigms that better align with the needs and preferences of the writing community. By understanding the concerns and aspirations of writers, researchers and technology providers can work towards developing AI systems that augment and empower the creative process, rather than replace or diminish the role of the human writer.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Holding the Line: A Study of Writers' Attitudes on Co-creativity with AI
Morteza Behrooz, Yuandong Tian, William Ngan, Yael Yungster, Justin Wong, David Zax
Generative AI has put many professional writers on the defensive; a major negotiation point of the recent Writers Guild of America's strike concerned use of AI. However, must AI threaten writers, their livelihoods or their creativity? And under what conditions, if any, might AI assistance be invited by different types of writers (from the amateur to the professional, from the screenwriter to the novelist)? To explore these questions, we conducted a qualitative study with 37 writers. We found that most writing occurs across five stages and within one of three modes; we additionally map openness to AI assistance to each intersecting stage-mode. We found that most writers were interested in AI assistance to some degree, but some writers felt drawing firm boundaries with an AI was key to their comfort using such systems. Designers can leverage these insights to build agency-respecting AI products for writers.
Read more4/23/2024
0
Ai.llude: Encouraging Rewriting AI-Generated Text to Support Creative Expression
David Zhou, Sarah Sterman
In each step of the creative writing process, writers must grapple with their creative goals and individual perspectives. This process affects the writer's sense of authenticity and their engagement with the written output. Fluent text generation by AIs risks undermining the reflective loop of rewriting. We hypothesize that deliberately generating imperfect intermediate text can encourage rewriting and prompt higher level decision making. Using logs from 27 writing sessions using a text generation AI, we characterize how writers adapt and rewrite AI suggestions, and show that intermediate suggestions significantly motivate and increase rewriting. We discuss the implications of this finding, and future steps for investigating how to leverage intermediate text in AI writing support tools to support ownership over creative expression.
Read more5/29/2024
0
The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing
Hilda Hadan, Derrick Wang, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Joseph Tu, Leah Zhang-Kennedy, Lennart E. Nacke
Generative AI (GenAI) use in research writing is growing fast. However, it is unclear how peer reviewers recognize or misjudge AI-augmented manuscripts. To investigate the impact of AI-augmented writing on peer reviews, we conducted a snippet-based online survey with 17 peer reviewers from top-tier HCI conferences. Our findings indicate that while AI-augmented writing improves readability, language diversity, and informativeness, it often lacks research details and reflective insights from authors. Reviewers consistently struggled to distinguish between human and AI-augmented writing but their judgements remained consistent. They noted the loss of a human touch and subjective expressions in AI-augmented writing. Based on our findings, we advocate for reviewer guidelines that promote impartial evaluations of submissions, regardless of any personal biases towards GenAI. The quality of the research itself should remain a priority in reviews, regardless of any preconceived notions about the tools used to create it. We emphasize that researchers must maintain their authorship and control over the writing process, even when using GenAI's assistance.
Read more7/18/2024
🤖
0
Techniques for supercharging academic writing with generative AI
Zhicheng Lin
Academic writing is an indispensable yet laborious part of the research enterprise. This Perspective maps out principles and methods for using generative artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs), to elevate the quality and efficiency of academic writing. We introduce a human-AI collaborative framework that delineates the rationale (why), process (how), and nature (what) of AI engagement in writing. The framework pinpoints both short-term and long-term reasons for engagement and their underlying mechanisms (e.g., cognitive offloading and imaginative stimulation). It reveals the role of AI throughout the writing process, conceptualized through a two-stage model for human-AI collaborative writing, and the nature of AI assistance in writing, represented through a model of writing-assistance types and levels. Building on this framework, we describe effective prompting techniques for incorporating AI into the writing routine (outlining, drafting, and editing) as well as strategies for maintaining rigorous scholarship, adhering to varied journal policies, and avoiding overreliance on AI. Ultimately, the prudent integration of AI into academic writing can ease the communication burden, empower authors, accelerate discovery, and promote diversity in science.
Read more8/14/2024