Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Drama Llama: An LLM-Powered Storylets Framework for Authorable Responsiveness in Interactive Narrative

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Drama Llama replaces logic preconditions with natural-language triggers an LLM checks, keeping storylet structure while reducing authoring burden.

desk verdict Drama Llama is a genuinely new integration of storylets and LLM trigger checking, but the paper's central authoring claim rests on an unmeasured trigger-classification accuracy that one participant already saw fail. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09099 v1 pith:TMRY32DN submitted 2025-01-15 cs.HC

Yuqian Sun , Phoebe J. Wang , John Joon Young Chung , Melissa Roemmele , Taewook Kim , Max Kreminski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords interactivenarrativestoryletslargelanguagemodelsdramamanagementnatural-languagetriggersauthorialcontrolemergentcreativewritingevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Drama Llama is an authoring framework for text-based interactive stories that combines the modular structure of storylets with the generative flexibility of large language models. Instead of writing logical preconditions in a programming language, authors write natural-language trigger conditions, and an LLM-based drama manager decides when those conditions hold in the ongoing story text. The paper argues this preserves authorial control over key narrative events while letting an LLM improvise the surrounding text, so a few well-crafted triggers can produce coherent, open-ended playthroughs. A preliminary study with six interactive-storytelling authors offers initial evidence that the stories are coherent and meaningful, though outputs tend toward clichés and originality scores are low. The central bet is that natural-language triggers are easier to author than procedural preconditions and still give authors precise event-level control.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the natural-language trigger, a storylet-like unit consisting of a condition expressed in prose, an ordered list of stage-direction actions, and a Basic or Ending type. Trigger firing is decided by a minimal LLM-based drama manager that reads the story text so far and, for each active trigger in sequence, asks the LLM whether the condition is met, stopping at the first YES. The trigger system maintains authorial control over narrative transitions while leaving the actual prose generation to LLM agents that role-play the characters.

What would settle it

Take one authored Drama Llama story, run it many times with varied player inputs, and have independent judges mark whether every trigger fired at an appropriate moment; if the agreement between LLM trigger decisions and human judgments is low, or if a trigger with an obviously satisfied condition is passed over while an unsatisfied one fires, the authorial-control claim collapses. The paper itself notes that trigger detection 'did not work as expected' for one participant and reports no quantitative accuracy numbers, so this measurement is directly available.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that interactive narrative authorship can be made more tractable by replacing the logical preconditions of traditional storylet systems with natural-language trigger conditions evaluated by an LLM. In Drama Llama each trigger holds a condition, an ordered list of action texts, and a type; after every player or agent message a minimal drama manager sequentially checks active triggers and fires the first one whose condition the LLM judges met, appending the next unused action to the story. The authors argue this yields the responsiveness of storylet-based drama management without requiring authors to encode a closed ontology of story states, and the study results indicate that authors could produce engaging, coherent narratives with only three or four triggers on average. The paper positions this as a hybrid approach that balances authorial intent and character autonomy, and it treats the authored triggers as 'pivot points' around which the LLM improvises the rest of the story.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach depends on the LLM drama manager reliably deciding whether a natural-language trigger condition is actually met by the story so far.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the LLM-based trigger check is reliable, authors can create responsive interactive stories without learning a procedural precondition language, lowering the barrier for non-programmer writers.
  • A small storylet set (roughly three or four triggers per story in the study) can drive dramatic pacing and narrative tension while the LLM fills in the rest of the text.
  • Because triggers are written in natural language, the same authoring tool can be applied to arbitrary genres and settings without modifying a fixed ontology of events.
  • The quality of the generated drama tracks the effort authors invest in character detail and trigger writing, suggesting that authorial input remains the main lever on output quality.
  • The planned fallback, repeatable, and ordering-constrained trigger types would let authors impose clocks and escalation patterns that the current single-pass sequential check cannot express.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's real test is not whether stories are coherent but whether trigger classification is accurate enough across many playthroughs; the single reported complaint about trigger detection suggests this is the fragile point, and a quantified accuracy benchmark would settle it.
  • Natural-language triggers may shift rather than remove the authorial burden: debugging a condition that fires too early or not at all now means iterating on prose prompts under stochastic LLM behavior, which is a different but still nontrivial craft.
  • The observed drift toward rational argumentation in the fixed-topic task hints at an emergent 'politeness bias' in the character agents; a targeted test would be to author characters with explicitly volatile emotional prompts and measure whether heated escalation can be reliably elicited.
  • If trigger-condition checking improved to near-perfect entailment accuracy, the storylet-plus-LLM architecture could become a general template for building long-form interactive fiction with player-introduced ideas folded into an author-drafted spine.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Drama Llama, a hybrid authoring framework that combines storylet-style structured narrative units with LLM-based story generation. Authors define natural-language triggers, conditions, and actions, and a minimal LLM-based drama manager sequentially checks active trigger conditions against the running story text after every message, firing the first trigger whose condition is judged true. The paper reports a preliminary authoring study with six experienced interactive-narrative authors, who created stories in an open-ended task and a fixed-topic task, self-annotated trigger activations, and self-rated their stories using the Torrance Test for Creative Writing (TTCW). The authors present qualitative feedback and TTCW tallies as 'initial evidence' that the system can produce coherent, meaningful narratives with believable character interactions while preserving authorial control.

Significance. If the central claim holds, Drama Llama would be a useful contribution to the interactive-narrative authoring literature: it addresses a real pain point of storylet systems by replacing logical preconditions with natural-language trigger conditions, and it addresses a real weakness of purely LLM-based narrative systems by giving authors event-level control through storylet-like triggers. The system description is clear, the prompts in the appendices are valuable for replication, and the comparison table situates the work well against prior systems. However, the paper's own evidence is weak: the numbered trigger-accuracy data that the study design collects (Section IV-A) are never reported, one participant explicitly reports trigger detection failure (Section V-B), and the evaluation is entirely self-directed by the six authors who also authored the content. Because trigger classification is the load-bearing component of the authoring value proposition, the paper currently supports a design proposal more strongly than a validated claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-A and V] The study design requires participants to annotate every trigger activation for 'Trigger Accuracy' (Section IV-A), yet Section V reports no trigger-accuracy numbers, no false-positive/false-negative counts, and no per-trigger or per-author breakdown. Section V-B records P1's report that 'detection of triggers did not work as expected.' Since Section III states that the drama manager sequentially checks active trigger conditions and fires the first trigger judged to be satisfied, a single incorrect classification can fire a storylet at the wrong time or preempt a higher-priority trigger, directly breaking the claimed authorial control. The paper must report the collected trigger-accuracy data, or explain why they cannot be reported; without such numbers the central claim rests on an unquantified component that one participant already observed failing.
  2. [IV and VI] The evaluation has no baseline and no comparison condition. The paper's motivation is that natural-language triggers lower author burden relative to logical preconditions (Section I, Discussion VI), but the study does not compare Drama Llama to any alternative authoring approach, and the Discussion's citation of Wang et al. [37] is an external finding about classifier-rule authoring, not evidence from this study. The claims about reduced authorial burden and authorability benefits are therefore not empirically tested; a comparative authoring study, or a substantially softened claim, is needed.
  3. [IV-A, V-A, and V-B] The evaluation is self-referential: the same six authors who wrote the world settings, characters, and triggers also judged whether the triggers fired at appropriate times and rated their own stories on the TTCW. There are no independent judges, no inter-rater reliability measures, and no statistical analysis of the binary TTCW responses beyond counts of authors who answered 'yes.' The paper should either add an independent evaluation, report the raw per-item TTCW responses for transparency, and/or explicitly frame the results as a qualitative feasibility study rather than 'initial evidence' that could be read as a validation of narrative quality.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B/C and Section III] The paper never states which LLM, model version, or decoding parameters were used for the simulation and trigger-checking prompts, nor whether any reproducibility artifact is available. Since trigger judgments are stochastic, specifying the model and sampling settings is necessary for the reported behavior to be interpretable.
  2. [V-A] The TTCW is described as 'a robust test for assessing creativity,' but the authors themselves rate their own stories and the results are aggregated as counts of 'yes' responses for only six authors. Please add a caveat about self-assessment and the small sample, and include the full per-question results shown in Appendix D in the main text or as a supplementary table.
  3. [Table I] The entries 'Maybe' and 'Maybe, with complex prompts' in the comparison table are vague. It would help readers if the table defined what condition would make an entry 'Yes' versus 'Maybe,' or if the table were replaced by a prose discussion of these differences.
  4. [V-B] The quotation from P4 contains a mismatched quotation mark and a grammatical error: 'overly forced' alignment of outputs should be presented as a direct quote with proper closing punctuation, e.g., 'overly forced' alignment, and the sentence should be revised for clarity.
  5. [VII] The limitations section correctly identifies future work on cooldowns and trigger ordering, but it does not mention the need to measure trigger classification accuracy, which is the most pressing unresolved issue identified in Section V-B. Adding this to the future-work list would align the paper's stated limitations with its own reported data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical system claims, and the self-reported evaluation, while a validity limitation, does not reduce any stated result to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

DRAMA LLAMA is a system paper whose central claims are empirical: that authors can use natural-language triggers in a storylet-style framework and that the resulting narratives are coherent, meaningful, and responsive. There is no formal derivation chain in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of the claim itself. The closest candidate, the LLM drama manager's trigger check, is a runtime component with distinct inputs: the trigger condition text and the story text so far. The Appendix C prompt asks the model to return YES or NO for whether a condition has been met, and Section IV-A asks participants to annotate 'Trigger Accuracy, indicating whether triggers fired at appropriate times within the narrative context.' This annotation is a human ground-truth judgment, not a quantity computed from the trigger condition or from the model's own YES/NO output. The TTCW self-evaluations are self-reported, which is a methodological limitation (and the paper is transparent about its preliminary nature), but the participants' ratings are not used as inputs to generate the narratives they rate, so no result is equivalent to its input by construction. The paper contains several self-citations (e.g., [3], [5], [22], [38]), but these are background references to design-space maps, prior systems, and an essay; none functions as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, a fitted parameter, or an ansatz that forces the paper's conclusions. The absence of reported quantitative trigger-accuracy data, and P1's comment that 'detection of triggers did not work as expected' (Section V-B), are unresolved empirical reliability concerns, not circularity. No step in the paper equates a prediction with an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumptions about LLM reliability for trigger detection and character simulation, a valid self-report creativity measure, and a representative sample of six authors. No free parameters or theoretical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LLM-based drama manager returns correct YES/NO judgments for natural-language trigger conditions.
    The sequential trigger check (Section III) makes trigger accuracy the linchpin of authorial control; P1's report that 'detection of triggers did not work as expected' (Section V-B) shows this is imperfect, yet no quantitative accuracy data is given.
  • domain assumption LLM agents generate believably in-character dialogue and reactions.
    The claim of believable character interactions rests on the quality of generated dialogue; the paper provides only qualitative self-reports from authors.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-administered TTCW scores validly measure creative quality.
    The TTCW is cited as robust, but here it is applied by the authors to their own stories, introducing a self-assessment confound.
  • domain assumption The six recruited authors are representative of the target author population.
    No recruitment criteria or sample-size justification is provided, and self-selected experienced authors may not generalize to novice users.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Drama Llama: An LLM-Powered Storylets Framework for Authorable Responsiveness in Interactive Narrative." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TMRY32DN

@misc{pith2026250109099,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Drama Llama: An LLM-Powered Storylets Framework for Authorable Responsiveness in Interactive Narrative},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TMRY32DN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09099}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present Drama Llama, an LLM-powered storylets framework that supports the authoring of responsive, open-ended interactive stories. DL combines the structural benefits of storylet-based systems with the generative capabilities of large language models, enabling authors to create responsive interactive narratives while maintaining narrative control. Rather than crafting complex logical preconditions in a general-purpose or domain-specific programming language, authors define triggers in natural language that fire at appropriate moments in the story. Through a preliminary authoring study with six content authors, we present initial evidence that DL can generate coherent and meaningful narratives with believable character interactions. This work suggests directions for hybrid approaches that enhance authorial control while supporting emergent narrative generation through LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09099 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall diagram of the DRAMA LLAMA system. • A condition: A natural-language definition of the condi￾tion under which the trigger should fire (Fig. 2B1). • Action(s): A sequence of natural-language pieces of “stage direction” text to inject into the player-visible story when the trigger fires (Fig. 2B2). Each time the trigger condition is met, the next unused action in the sequence is injected into the story and bec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The setting configuration interface used by authors to define their story setting, characters, and triggers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The simulation interface used by authors to test their story definition as they write and modify the setting and trigger content. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Textual and visual summaries of the stories produced for Task A by our six authoring study participants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Authors’ TTCW evaluations of representative playthroughs of their Task A and Task B stories. For both tasks, authors answered either “yes” or “no” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can LLM Agents Stick to the Script? A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Consistency in Interactive Narratives

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 100-environment benchmark shows that state-of-the-art LLM narrators frequently contradict established story facts and fail to preserve plot commitments over long interactive sessions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [37]

    End User Authoring of Personalized Content Classifiers: Comparing Example Labeling, Rule Writing, and LLM Prompting

    L. Wang, K. Yurechko, P. Dani, Q. Z. Chen, and A. X. Zhang, “End user authoring of personalized content classifiers: Comparing example labeling, rule writing, and LLM prompting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03247, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Responsiveness in narrative systems,

    S. Mason, “Responsiveness in narrative systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Authorial burden,

    J. D. Jones, “Authorial burden,” in The Authoring Problem: Challenges in Supporting Authoring for Interactive Digital Narratives . Springer, 2023, pp. 47–63

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Sketching a map of the storylets design space,

    M. Kreminski and N. Wardrip-Fruin, “Sketching a map of the storylets design space,” in Interactive Storytelling: 11th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2018 . Springer, 2018, pp. 160–164

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Experiencing the authorial burden,

    J. D. Jones and D. Millard, “Experiencing the authorial burden,” in Proceedings of the 35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, 2024, pp. 78–87

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Guiding and diversifying LLM- based story generation via answer set programming,

    P. J. Wang and M. Kreminski, “Guiding and diversifying LLM- based story generation via answer set programming,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00554, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Fac ¸ade: An experiment in building a fully- realized interactive drama,

    M. Mateas and A. Stern, “Fac ¸ade: An experiment in building a fully- realized interactive drama,” in Game Developers Conference , vol. 2. Citeseer, 2003, pp. 4–8

    work page 2003

  8. [7]

    Versu—a simulationist storytelling system,

    R. Evans and E. Short, “Versu—a simulationist storytelling system,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 113–130, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    StoryNexus,

    Failbetter Games, “StoryNexus,” http://www.storynexus.com/, accessed: 7 December 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    StoryAssembler: an engine for generating dynamic choice-driven nar- ratives,

    J. Garbe, M. Kreminski, B. Samuel, N. Wardrip-Fruin, and M. Mateas, “StoryAssembler: an engine for generating dynamic choice-driven nar- ratives,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games , 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    StoryVerse: Towards co-authoring dy- namic plot with LLM-based character simulation via narrative planning,

    Y . Wang, Q. Zhou, and D. Ledo, “StoryVerse: Towards co-authoring dy- namic plot with LLM-based character simulation via narrative planning,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games , 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,

    J. S. Park, J. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein, “Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    CharacterAI,

    CharacterAI, “CharacterAI,” https://character.ai/, 2024, accessed: 2024- 09-14. [Online]. Available: https://character.ai/

    2024

  6. [13]

    ChatGPT: A large language model,

    OpenAI, “ChatGPT: A large language model,” OpenAI, 2024, accessed 23 Oct 2024. [Online]. Available: https://chat.openai.com/

    2024

  7. [14]

    Playing with unicorns: AI Dungeon and citizen NLP,

    M. Hua and R. Raley, “Playing with unicorns: AI Dungeon and citizen NLP,” DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly , vol. 14, no. 4, 2020

    2020

  8. [15]

    Co-writing screenplays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals,

    P. Mirowski, K. W. Mathewson, J. Pittman, and R. Evans, “Co-writing screenplays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    A coauthorship-centric history of inter- active emergent narrative,

    M. Kreminski and M. Mateas, “A coauthorship-centric history of inter- active emergent narrative,” in Interactive Storytelling: 14th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2021 . Springer, 2021, pp. 222–235

    2021

  10. [17]

    Guiding interactive drama,

    P. Weyhrauch, “Guiding interactive drama,” Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997

    1997

  11. [18]

    Evaluating the authorial leverage of drama management,

    S. Chen, M. Nelson, and M. Mateas, “Evaluating the authorial leverage of drama management,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , vol. 5, 2009, pp. 136–141

    2009

  12. [19]

    Praxish: a rational reconstruction of a logic-based DSL for modeling social practices,

    J. Dameris, R. H. Roman, and M. Kreminski, “Praxish: a rational reconstruction of a logic-based DSL for modeling social practices,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , vol. 19, 2023, pp. 407–415

    2023

  13. [20]

    Beyond branching: Quality-based and salience- based narrative structures,

    E. Short, “Beyond branching: Quality-based and salience- based narrative structures,” https://emshort.blog/2016/04/12/ beyond-branching-quality-based-and-salience-based-narrative-structures/, accessed: 7 December 2024

    2016

  14. [21]

    Text to dialog: Using semantic similarity to extend narrative immersion in virtual worlds,

    S. Chen, B. Pietrzak, K. Mathewson, A. Kipnis, and E. Hoffman-John, “Text to dialog: Using semantic similarity to extend narrative immersion in virtual worlds,” in NeurIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Creativity and Design 4.0 , 2020

    2020

  15. [22]

    Cheap and easy open-ended text input for interactive emergent narrative,

    M. Kreminski, “Cheap and easy open-ended text input for interactive emergent narrative,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00942 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Using language models to convert between natural language and game commands,

    S. Papazov, W. Gill, M. G. Ferreiro, A. Zhu, L. J. Martin, and C. Callison-Burch, “Using language models to convert between natural language and game commands,” in The Third Wordplay: When Language Meets Games Workshop, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Narrative planning: Balancing plot and character,

    M. O. Riedl and R. M. Young, “Narrative planning: Balancing plot and character,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , vol. 39, pp. 217– 268, 2010

    2010

  18. [25]

    The story so far on narrative planning,

    R. E. Cardona-Rivera, A. Jhala, J. Porteous, and R. M. Young, “The story so far on narrative planning,” in 34th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation,

    B. R. Anderson, J. H. Shah, and M. Kreminski, “Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation,” in Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition , 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    GPT for games: A scoping review (2020-2023),

    D. Yang, E. Kleinman, and C. Harteveld, “GPT for games: A scoping review (2020-2023),” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17794 , 2024

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Language as reality: a co-creative storytelling game experience in 1001 Nights using generative AI,

    Y . Sun, Z. Li, K. Fang, C. H. Lee, and A. Asadipour, “Language as reality: a co-creative storytelling game experience in 1001 Nights using generative AI,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , vol. 19, 2023, p...

    2023

  22. [29]

    Fictional worlds, real connections: Developing community storytelling social chatbots through LLMs,

    Y . Sun, H. Wang, P. M. Chan, M. Tabibi, Y . Zhang, H. Lu, Y . Chen, C. H. Lee, and A. Asadipour, “Fictional worlds, real connections: Developing community storytelling social chatbots through LLMs,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11478, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Dungeons and Dragons as a dialog challenge for artificial intelligence,

    C. Callison-Burch, G. S. Tomar, L. J. Martin, D. Ippolito, S. Bailis, and D. Reitter, “Dungeons and Dragons as a dialog challenge for artificial intelligence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07109 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Authors’ values and attitudes towards AI-bridged scalable personalization of creative language arts,

    T. Kim, H. Han, E. Adar, M. Kay, and J. J. Y . Chung, “Authors’ values and attitudes towards AI-bridged scalable personalization of creative language arts,” in Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Art or artifice? large language models and the false promise of creativity,

    T. Chakrabarty, P. Laban, D. Agarwal, S. Muresan, and C.-S. Wu, “Art or artifice? large language models and the false promise of creativity,” in Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024

    2024

  26. [33]

    Interactive narrative: An intelligent systems approach,

    M. O. Riedl and V . Bulitko, “Interactive narrative: An intelligent systems approach,” AI Magazine, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 67–67, 2013

    2013

  27. [34]

    Computational caricatures: Probing the game design process with AI,

    A. Smith and M. Mateas, “Computational caricatures: Probing the game design process with AI,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , vol. 7, no. 3, 2011, pp. 14–18

    2011

  28. [35]

    Why Johnny can’t prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts,

    J. Zamfirescu-Pereira, R. Y . Wong, B. Hartmann, and Q. Yang, “Why Johnny can’t prompt: how non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    State of what art? A call for multi-prompt LLM evaluation,

    M. Mizrahi, G. Kaplan, D. Malkin, R. Dror, D. Shahaf, and G. Stanovsky, “State of what art? A call for multi-prompt LLM evaluation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00595 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The dearth of the author in AI-supported writing,

    M. Kreminski, “The dearth of the author in AI-supported writing,” in Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants, 2024, pp. 48–50

    2024

  31. [39]

    condition

    J. H. Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. MIT Press, 1997. APPENDIX A. Example Trigger Definition A typical trigger looks like the following: { "condition": "Has Sepideh noticed Byron withdrawing from the conversation?", "actions": [ "Sepideh...

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.