Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 36 references

Dialogue with the Machine and Dialogue with the Art World: Evaluating Generative AI for Culturally-Situated Creativity

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that coupling artists' hands-on experimentation with generative AI and structured conversations with art-world experts yields a culturally situated evaluation that mimics real-world reception and shifts artists' use of…

desk verdict A genuinely promising dialogic method for evaluating generative AI in cultural context, but the paper's causal claims outrun its curated qualitative evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14077 v1 pith:ZNIFD76N submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CY cs.AI

Rida Qadri , Piotr Mirowski , Aroussiak Gabriellan , Farbod Mehr , Huma Gupta , Pamela Karimi , Remi Denton This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords generativeAIevaluationculturallysituatedcreativityartworldsdialogueasmethodPersianGulfcommunity-centeredtext-to-imagemodelsdecentralizeddatasets
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

This paper proposes that the right way to evaluate generative AI for culturally situated creative work is through two mutually informed dialogues: structured artist-led experimentation with the tools, and structured conversations between artists and art-world experts such as historians, curators, and archivists. The authors argue that this pairing goes beyond benchmarks, crowd-worker ratings, and artist-only interviews because it mimics how generative artwork would actually be received in the broader art ecosystem. Through a case study with three artists and three commentators rooted in Persian Gulf art worlds, they trace how the dialogues generated culturally specific aspirations, such as decentralized datasets with controlled access, and shifted an artist's project toward hybridized, activist imagery. The larger stake, if the method works, is that AI developers can get an evaluation pathway that treats cultural reception as part of the technology's design problem.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the paired dialogue loop: a 'dialogue with the machine,' in which artists experiment freely with generative AI tools over several weeks using prompt engineering, fine-tuning, and their own datasets, and a 'dialogue with the art world,' in which experts in art history, architecture, and curation meet artists in workshops, one-on-one sessions, and office hours. The two loops are designed to be mutually informed: questions and outputs from the machine become material for the art-world dialogue, and the commentators' critical reflections feed back into how artists use the machine. The paper's argument is that this feedback coupling, not the machine dialogue or the expert conversation alone, is what produces culturally situated evaluation.

What would settle it

Run a controlled comparison with two matched groups of artists from the same cultural context using the same generative tools, giving only one group the art-world commentary sessions. If the commentary group's outputs and stated intentions do not shift toward the culturally radical directions identified in this paper, or if the no-commentary group shifts just as much, the claim that the dialogue does the work is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 'dialogue with the art world' and 'dialogue with the machine' are not separate activities but one coupled evaluation method, and that this coupling produces findings unavailable to output-based benchmarking. In the case study, artists were given freedom to choose models, techniques, and datasets over a multi-week experimentation period, while commentators engaged them in workshops, one-on-one conversations, and office hours. The authors present two traced dialogues as evidence: in one, artists and commentators converged, from different directions, on the idea of decentralized datasets as a pathway for better cultural representation, with one version treating open commons as the goal and another insisting on restricted access to protect community knowledge. In the other, an artist's project was reshaped by hearing two divergent readings of Persianness, producing hybridized activist imagery in which text rendered by the model became a point of critique connected to histories of orientalist pseudo-calligraphy. The authors read these exchanges as showing that the method mimics the reception generative artwork would meet in the art world and that it shifts artists' use of tools toward more culturally radical possibilities.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration depends on the assumption that three commentators recruited through the authors' professional networks stand in for how the broader Persian Gulf art world would receive the artwork, and that the shifts observed in the artists' work were caused by the dialogue rather than by other features of the study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method works, generative AI evaluation for creative domains should routinely include art-world commentators, not just benchmark scores or isolated artist feedback.
  • Artist behavior shifts during the dialogue are themselves evaluation data: what artists choose to attempt after hearing expert commentary can reveal culturally specific gaps in the tools.
  • Current tool limitations carry culturally specific stakes: the same text-rendering failure that is a minor image-quality issue elsewhere reads as a replay of orientalist pseudo-calligraphy in this context.
  • Design aspirations such as decentralized datasets with access restrictions emerge directly from the dialogue, pointing toward data-governance features rather than only larger datasets.
  • The method is meant to apply to communities beyond the Persian Gulf, since the dialogue structure is cultural context itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A controlled comparison could isolate the dialogue's causal role: two groups of artists with the same tools, only one receiving the art-world commentary, would test whether the observed shifts come from the dialogue or from the study's other features.
  • The 'decentralized datasets with restricted access' aspiration implies a concrete research agenda for AI platforms: provenance, access control, and community ownership of training data, not just more inclusive scraping.
  • The method could be extended to measure actual reception downstream, for example by showing outputs from dialogue-guided artists to wider curatorial or audience panels and comparing reaction with outputs from non-dialogue artists.
  • If the dialogues genuinely mimic art-world reception, then failures like garbled text are not just engineering bugs; they are representational harms that should be prioritized in model development for non-western contexts.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a dialogic method for evaluating generative AI in culturally situated creative practice, combining 'dialogue with the machine' (multi-week artist experimentation with GenAI tools) with 'dialogue with the art world' (workshops and one-on-one meetings among artists, art historians, curators, and archivists). The method is demonstrated through a case study with three artists and three commentators from Persian Gulf art worlds. The authors present two dialogues—Dialogue A on decentralized datasets and Dialogue B on representational possibilities—and claim that the method produces culturally rich evaluation that mimics reception in the broader art ecosystem and shifts artists' use of AI tools toward culturally radical possibilities. The paper is co-authored with some of the study's scholar and artist participants.

Significance. If its programmatic claims were accepted, the paper would give AI evaluation researchers a path beyond benchmarks and artist-only interviews, expanding who evaluates generative AI to include curatorial and historical expertise and treating evaluation as a social, ecosystem-level process. The case study is concrete and rich: it surfaces specific design pathways (decentralized datasets with access restrictions, counter-archives) and a culturally contextualized critique of text rendering ('gibberish' pseudo-calligraphy). The method is a plausible and promising complement to existing qualitative approaches. However, the demonstrated value is currently under-specified, and the strong claims of causation and of 'mimicking' art-world reception outrun the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2 and Abstract] The paper makes a causal claim: 'These exchanges shifted the artist's use of generative AI tools to explore radical possibilities' (end of Section 3.1.2), and the Abstract states that the dialogues 'allow artists to shift their use of the tools.' The study design (Sections 2.1–2.2, 3.0.1) includes no comparison condition and no independent pre/post measure of artists' practice; the reported shifts are based on researcher- and participant-selected reflections. Artist-2's reported shift after Workshop 1 is equally compatible with researcher priming, demand characteristics of the paid multi-week engagement, or the novelty of the tools. Please either provide evidence of a causal chain (e.g., triangulated process data, a pre-registered prediction, or an arm without art-world dialogue), or temper the claim and describe the observed changes as consistent with or illustrative of the method's potential rather than as established effects.
  2. [Section 3.0.1 and Section 3.1] The claim that the method 'mimic[s] the reception of generative artwork in the broader art ecosystem' (Abstract; Section 2.1) is not established. The evidence for reception rests on the views of three commentators recruited through the authors' professional networks (Section 3.0.1), presented via curated excerpts with no full transcripts, no analysis protocol, and no negative cases. A trio of purposively recruited experts cannot stand in for the 'broader Persian Gulf art world.' Please either present the analytical procedure (e.g., coding scheme, quote-selection criteria, member checks) and a discussion of negative or diverging cases, or reframe the claim as 'simulating a possible reception' and clearly state the sample's limits.
  3. [Section 4] Section 4 admits that 'We did not have space to dive into the aspirations and recommendations that emerged from this study,' deferring them to a separate full paper. Yet the Abstract and Section 2.2 claim the method 'presents developers with actionable pathways' and yields 'recommendations.' As it stands, Section 3.1 offers illustrative pathways (decentralized datasets, restricted access) but not a developed set of recommendations for developers. To make the 'value' of the method assessable, include at least a summary of the emergent recommendations or explicitly characterize them as preliminary and non-exhaustive.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The paper mentions process logs and reflection videos as data sources (Section 2.2), but Section 3.1 presents only two curated dialogues, with no analysis of the process logs or the full corpus described. The reader cannot tell how quotations were selected or whether they are representative. Please add a methods subsection on data analysis—e.g., thematic analysis, number of rounds, author positionality, and how the two dialogues were chosen—or limit the presentation to 'selected excerpts' and avoid implying that a systematic analysis of the full corpus was conducted.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'honing in on' should be 'homing in on' (or 'focusing on').
  2. [Section 2.1] 'art was not developed in vacuum' should read 'in a vacuum'.
  3. [Section 3.1] 'Coupling the the artists' contains a duplicated 'the'.
  4. [Section 4] 'holisitic' should be 'holistic'.
  5. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is difficult to read: the label 'Dialogue with the Art World' appears at both ends, and the stage sequence is unclear. Please add arrows and a legend to clarify the workflow.
  6. [Section 3.0.1] The description 'through personal networks of professional collaboration' is vague; please specify the snowball recruitment steps and inclusion criteria more concretely.
  7. [Section 3.1.1] The sentence 'We present a dialogue where multiple artists developed...' introduces exchanges that involve Artist-3 with the Museum Curator and Artist-1 with the Art Historian; clarify that this is a composite of multiple exchanges rather than a single dialogue.
  8. [Title page / Section 1] The paper says it is 'co-authored with scholars and artists who participated in the study,' but it does not identify which listed authors are participants; a footnote identifying participant co-authors would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the case-study dialogues are presented as qualitative evidence, not as predictions derived from fitted inputs or author-imported uniqueness claims.

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative methods proposal, not a quantitative derivation or prediction exercise. Its central claim is that coupling artist-led experimentation with generative AI and structured conversations with art-world commentators yields culturally situated evaluations. The evidence for that claim is the documented content of the two dialogues in Section 3.1, which is anecdotal and self-reported but not equivalent by construction to the paper's input. The paper does define its evaluation process as 'mimic[king]' reception, yet that is an empirical framing of the case study, not a mathematical tautology: the commentators are recruited human experts whose responses could in principle have diverged from the authors' expectations. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The self-citations, e.g., [14] in the recruitment description and [34] in the discussion of community-centered evaluation, support methodological context but are not load-bearing for the paper's main demonstration. The absence of a control condition and the reliance on curated excerpts weaken causal inference about whether dialogue caused shifts in artists' practice, but that is a study-design limitation, not circularity. The paper is transparent about its scope, including deferring detailed recommendations to a later paper. Therefore, no circular step meeting the specified evidentiary bar is present.

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

The central claim rests on no numeric free parameters. The theoretical and sampling assumptions are the main load-bearing premises: Becker's Art Worlds framing, the representativeness of expert commentators, the reliability of self-reports, and the generalizability of a three-participant purposive sample. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Becker's Art Worlds: art is socially produced and evaluated through networks of critics, curators, audiences, and other actors.
    Invoked in the Introduction to justify expanding evaluation beyond artists and outputs to include art-world experts.
  • domain assumption The three commentators' perspectives stand in for reception in the broader Persian Gulf art world.
    Core to the method; the paper treats three purposively sampled commentators as representative of an art world's reception.
  • domain assumption Artists' self-reported process logs, reflection videos, and workshop statements accurately capture creative process and shifts in tool use.
    The evidence for the method's value rests on these self-reports, with no independent observation or triangulation.
  • domain assumption A small purposive sample of three artists and three commentators can demonstrate the value of the method.
    The paper generalizes from this sample to claims about culturally situated evaluation, despite the sample being recruited via personal networks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dialogue with the Machine and Dialogue with the Art World: Evaluating Generative AI for Culturally-Situated Creativity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZNIFD76N

@misc{pith2026241214077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dialogue with the Machine and Dialogue with the Art World: Evaluating Generative AI for Culturally-Situated Creativity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZNIFD76N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14077}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes dialogue as a method for evaluating generative AI tools for culturally-situated creative practice, that recognizes the socially situated nature of art. Drawing on sociologist Howard Becker's concept of Art Worlds, this method expands the scope of traditional AI and creativity evaluations beyond benchmarks, user studies with crowd-workers, or focus groups conducted with artists. Our method involves two mutually informed dialogues: 1) 'dialogues with art worlds' placing artists in conversation with experts such as art historians, curators, and archivists, and 2)'dialogues with the machine,' facilitated through structured artist- and critic-led experimentation with state-of-the-art generative AI tools. We demonstrate the value of this method through a case study with artists and experts steeped in non-western art worlds, specifically the Persian Gulf. We trace how these dialogues help create culturally rich and situated forms of evaluation for representational possibilities of generative AI that mimic the reception of generative artwork in the broader art ecosystem. Putting artists in conversation with commentators also allow artists to shift their use of the tools to respond to their cultural and creative context. Our study can provide generative AI researchers an understanding of the complex dynamics of technology, human creativity and the socio-politics of art worlds, to build more inclusive machines for diverse art worlds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the dialogue-based approach followed in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Art worlds and social types

    Howard S Becker. Art worlds and social types. American behavioral scientist, 19(6):703–718, 1976

    work page 1976

  2. [2]

    Art worlds: updated and expanded

    Howard S Becker. Art worlds: updated and expanded. Univ of California Press, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    https://manovich.net/index.php/projects/artificial-aesthetics, 2024

    Lev Manovich and Emanuelle Arielli.Artificial Aesthetics: Generative AI, Art and Visual Media. https://manovich.net/index.php/projects/artificial-aesthetics, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Photoreal- istic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Remi Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photoreal- istic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:36479–36494, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image generation

    Jiahui Yu, Yuanzhong Xu, Jing Yu Koh, Thang Luong, Gunjan Baid, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Alexander Ku, Yinfei Yang, Burcu Karagol Ayan, et al. Scaling autoregressive models for content-rich text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10789, 2(3):5, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    A computational approach to studying aesthetic judgments of ambiguous artworks

    Xi Wang, Zoya Bylinskii, Aaron Hertzmann, and Robert Pepperell. A computational approach to studying aesthetic judgments of ambiguous artworks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Towards artistic image aesthetics assessment: a large-scale dataset and a new method

    Ran Yi, Haoyuan Tian, Zhihao Gu, Yu-Kun Lai, and Paul L Rosin. Towards artistic image aesthetics assessment: a large-scale dataset and a new method. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22388–22397, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Measuring diversity in co-creative image generation

    Francisco Ibarrola and Kazjon Grace. Measuring diversity in co-creative image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13826, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Creative walk adversarial networks: Novel art generation with probabilistic random walk deviation from style norms

    Divyansh Jha, Kai Yi, Ivan Skorokhodov, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. Creative walk adversarial networks: Novel art generation with probabilistic random walk deviation from style norms. In ICCC, pages 195–204, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Personalizing text-to-image generation via aesthetic gradients

    Victor Gallego. Personalizing text-to-image generation via aesthetic gradients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12330, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Redefining creativity in the era of ai? perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists

    Roosa Wingström, Johanna Hautala, and Riina Lundman. Redefining creativity in the era of ai? perspectives of computer scientists and new media artists. Creativity Research Journal, 36(2):177–193, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Understanding visual artists’ values and attitudes towards collaboration, technology, and ai

    Hannah Johnston and David Thue. Understanding visual artists’ values and attitudes towards collaboration, technology, and ai. In Graphics Interface 2024 Second Deadline

    2024

  5. [13]

    explorers of unknown planets

    Baptiste Caramiaux and Sarah Fdili Alaoui. " explorers of unknown planets" practices and politics of artificial intelligence in visual arts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2):1–24, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Ai’s regimes of representation: A community-centered study of text-to-image models in south asia

    Rida Qadri, Renee Shelby, Cynthia L Bennett, and Remi Denton. Ai’s regimes of representation: A community-centered study of text-to-image models in south asia. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 506–517, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Evolving coagency between artists and ai in the spatial cocreative process of artmaking

    Paulina Nordström, Riina Lundman, and Johanna Hautala. Evolving coagency between artists and ai in the spatial cocreative process of artmaking. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 113(9):2203–2218, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Understanding generative ai in art: An interview study with artists on g-ai from an hci perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13149, 2023

    Jingyu Shi, Rahul Jain, Runlin Duan, and Karthik Ramani. Understanding generative ai in art: An interview study with artists on g-ai from an hci perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13149, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Artists and ai: Creative interactions and tensions

    Charlotte Bird. Artists and ai: Creative interactions and tensions. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–6, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Towards a diffractive analysis of prompt-based generative ai

    Nina Rajcic, Maria Teresa Llano Rodriguez, and Jon McCormack. Towards a diffractive analysis of prompt-based generative ai. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–15, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Generative ai in creative practice: Ml- artist folk theories of t2i use, harm, and harm-reduction

    Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, and Negar Rostamzadeh. Generative ai in creative practice: Ml- artist folk theories of t2i use, harm, and harm-reduction. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–17, 2024. 7

    2024

  12. [20]

    Biases in generative art: A causal look from the lens of art history

    Ramya Srinivasan and Kanji Uchino. Biases in generative art: A causal look from the lens of art history. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 41–51, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Co-writing screen- plays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals

    Piotr Mirowski, Kory W Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. Co-writing screen- plays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–34, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Creativity support in the age of large language models: An empirical study involving emerging writers

    Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, Faeze Brahman, and Smaranda Muresan. Creativity support in the age of large language models: An empirical study involving emerging writers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12570, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Inspo: Writing stories with a flock of ais and humans

    Chieh-Yang Huang, Sanjana Gautam, Shannon McClellan Brooks, Ya-Fang Lin, and Ting- Hao’Kenneth’ Huang. Inspo: Writing stories with a flock of ais and humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16521, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Creative writing with an ai-powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers

    Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, and Sehmon Burnam. Creative writing with an ai-powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05030, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 21(4):1–25, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation

    Ben Shneiderman. Creativity support tools: accelerating discovery and innovation. Communi- cations of the ACM, 50(12):20–32, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    The impact of generative ai on artists

    Reishiro Kawakami and Sukrit Venkatagiri. The impact of generative ai on artists. In Proceed- ings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition, pages 79–82, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Art and the science of generative ai

    Ziv Epstein, Aaron Hertzmann, Investigators of Human Creativity, Memo Akten, Hany Farid, Jessica Fjeld, Morgan R Frank, Matthew Groh, Laura Herman, Neil Leach, et al. Art and the science of generative ai. Science, 380(6650):1110–1111, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ai art and its impact on artists

    Harry H Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru. Ai art and its impact on artists. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 363–374, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Decolonial ai: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence

    Shakir Mohamed, Marie-Therese Png, and William Isaac. Decolonial ai: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 33:659–684, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Generative adversarial copy machines

    Martin Zeilinger. Generative adversarial copy machines. Culture Machine, 20:1–23, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Meaning in the visual arts

    Panofsky Erwin. Meaning in the visual arts. Papers in and on Art History, 1955

    1955

  25. [33]

    The Social History of Art Volume Four

    Arnold Hauser. The Social History of Art Volume Four. 1951

    1951

  26. [34]

    A robot walks into a bar: Can language models serve as creativity supporttools for comedy? an evaluation of llms’ humour alignment with comedians

    Piotr Mirowski, Juliette Love, Kory Mathewson, and Shakir Mohamed. A robot walks into a bar: Can language models serve as creativity supporttools for comedy? an evaluation of llms’ humour alignment with comedians. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Tra...

    2024

  27. [35]

    i wouldn’t say offensive but

    Vinitha Gadiraju, Shaun Kane, Sunipa Dev, Alex Taylor, Ding Wang, Remi Denton, and Robin Brewer. " i wouldn’t say offensive but...": Disability-centered perspectives on large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparen...

    2023

  28. [36]

    they only care to show us the wheelchair

    Kelly Avery Mack, Rida Qadri, Remi Denton, Shaun K. Kane, and Cynthia L. Bennett. “they only care to show us the wheelchair”: disability representation in text-to-image ai models. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, New Yor...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.