Chatbots as Unwitting Actors
Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 10:00 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Chatbots can serve as unwitting actors in comedy performances.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
We present two initial attempts to use chatbots for comedy performances from our comedy podcast and call for future work toward both designing chatbots for performance and for performing alongside chatbots.
What carries the argument
Chatbots as unwitting actors: existing chatbots placed into performance settings to produce interactions without being built or aware of the comedic goal.
If this is right
- Chatbot systems can be redesigned to support artistic and performative uses.
- Comedians can add chatbots to their routines as additional performers.
- Computational creativity methods can extend to live shows and improvisation with AI.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- Live tests could measure how audiences react when they know or do not know an actor is a chatbot.
- The same pattern might apply to theater scripts or music where chatbots generate lines or riffs on stage.
- Disclosure rules for AI in entertainment could become necessary once performances become common.
Load-bearing premise
No artists or comedians have previously attempted to use chatbots in comedy performances.
What would settle it
A documented case of an artist or comedian using a chatbot in a comedy performance before these two attempts, or audience data showing the podcast segments produced no comedic effect.
read the original abstract
Chatbots are popular for both task-oriented conversations and unstructured conversations with web users. Several different approaches to creating comedy and art exist across the field of computational creativity. Despite the popularity and ease of use of chatbots, there have not been any attempts by artists or comedians to use these systems for comedy performances. We present two initial attempts to do so from our comedy podcast and call for future work toward both designing chatbots for performance and for performing alongside chatbots.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript asserts that despite the popularity and ease of use of chatbots, no artists or comedians have previously used them for comedy performances. It presents two initial attempts drawn from the authors' comedy podcast and issues a call for future work on designing chatbots for performance and on performing alongside chatbots.
Significance. If the novelty premise and the substance of the two attempts can be substantiated, the work could help establish a new intersection between HCI, computational creativity, and live performance. The explicit call for future design and co-performance research provides a clear agenda that other researchers could pursue.
major comments (2)
- [Abstract] Abstract: The factual claim that 'there have not been any attempts by artists or comedians to use these systems for comedy performances' is presented without citations, a literature survey, or engagement with prior work in computational creativity, performance art, or chatbot deployments. This assertion is load-bearing for the paper's framing of its own contributions as 'initial attempts.'
- [Sections describing the podcast attempts] Body sections describing the two attempts: The manuscript states that it presents two initial attempts but supplies no transcripts, logs, participant details, audience reactions, or any form of evaluation, making it impossible to verify what occurred or to assess whether the attempts support the broader claims.
minor comments (1)
- Add a dedicated related-work section that surveys relevant literature in computational creativity and performance HCI; this would both support or qualify the novelty claim and provide context for the call for future work.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important areas for strengthening the manuscript. We respond to each major comment below.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The factual claim that 'there have not been any attempts by artists or comedians to use these systems for comedy performances' is presented without citations, a literature survey, or engagement with prior work in computational creativity, performance art, or chatbot deployments. This assertion is load-bearing for the paper's framing of its own contributions as 'initial attempts.'
Authors: We agree that the claim would benefit from greater substantiation. It was based on our review of the computational creativity and performance literature at the time of writing, which did not identify prior chatbot use in comedy performance contexts. In revision we will add a concise related-work section surveying relevant areas (computational creativity systems, interactive performance installations, and artistic chatbot deployments) and will qualify the original statement as 'to the best of our knowledge.' This will also allow us to situate the contribution more precisely without overstating novelty. revision: yes
-
Referee: [Sections describing the podcast attempts] Body sections describing the two attempts: The manuscript states that it presents two initial attempts but supplies no transcripts, logs, participant details, audience reactions, or any form of evaluation, making it impossible to verify what occurred or to assess whether the attempts support the broader claims.
Authors: The manuscript is framed as a position piece whose primary goal is to issue a call for future design and co-performance research rather than to deliver a formal empirical study. The two attempts are recounted from the authors' direct experience producing the podcast; no systematic data collection (transcripts, logs, or audience metrics) was performed at the time. In the revised version we will expand the descriptions with additional qualitative context drawn from those experiences and will explicitly note their anecdotal character, thereby clarifying that they serve to illustrate the research opportunity rather than to provide evaluative evidence. revision: partial
Circularity Check
No derivation chain or mathematical claims present
full rationale
The paper is a short descriptive report on two podcast-based chatbot comedy experiments. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions derived from inputs, and no self-citation chains. The central framing ('no prior attempts') is an unsupported factual assertion rather than a derived result, but this does not constitute circularity under the defined patterns. The call for future work is independent of any self-referential construction. Default score of 0 applies because the document is self-contained as a non-technical position piece with no load-bearing derivations to inspect.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.