Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Writing Tools: Looking Back to Look Ahead

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.17894 v1 pith:KDAHTQDW submitted 2023-03-31 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords projectswritingresearchaspectsneedsresourcesstartedstopped
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Research on writing tools started with the increased availability of computers in the 1970s. After a first phase addressing the needs of programmers and data scientists, research in the late 1980s started to focus on writing-specific needs. Several projects aimed at supporting writers and letting them concentrate on the creative aspects of writing by having the writing tool take care of the mundane aspects using NLP techniques. Due to technical limitations at that time the projects failed and research in this area stopped. However, today's computing power and NLP resources make the ideas from these projects technically feasible; in fact, we see projects explicitly continuing from where abandoned projects stopped, and we see new applications integrating NLP resources without making references to those old projects. To design intelligent writing assistants with the possibilities offered by today's technology, we should re-examine the goals and lessons learned from previous projects to define the important dimensions to be considered.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. AI-Facilitated Analysis of Abstracts and Conclusions: Flagging Unsubstantiated Claims and Ambiguous Pronouns

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Structured prompts can steer LLMs to flag certain unsupported claims and ambiguous pronouns, but performance varies sharply by model, context, and the syntactic role of the target, and the single test case was also th...

Pith tools