Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

"It was 80% me, 20% AI": Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Writers see authenticity as process, not output, when co-writing with AI.

desk verdict Solid qualitative core on writer-centered authenticity, but the personalization finding lacks a manipulation check and the abstract overstates the reader data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13032 v1 pith:YNGCJATY submitted 2024-11-20 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY

Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang , Q. Vera Liao , Su Lin Blodgett , Alexandra Olteanu , Adam Trischler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY
keywords authenticityhuman-AIco-writinglargelanguagemodelspersonalizationprofessionalwritersreaderperceptionscontentgatekeepingAIwritingassistance
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

The paper argues that authenticity in human-AI co-writing is primarily a process of constructing and expressing the writer's authentic self, not a property of the finished text. Based on interviews with 19 professional writers who co-wrote passages with personalized and non-personalized large language model tools, it finds writers define authenticity through the source of content, their internal experiences and identities, and the writing outcomes, with the internal-experience facet receiving the most emphasis. Writers preserve authenticity by starting from a clear vision, using AI in the middle "fuzzy" stage of idea development, and acting as content gatekeepers who decide what enters the text. The paper further claims that personalization built from a 200-word writing sample is preferred by writers but changes neither their requesting and accepting behavior nor readers' ability to distinguish the results, and that readers react positively to writers experimenting with AI.

What carries the argument

The central object is the writer-centered conception of authenticity, a three-part construct of source authenticity, authentic self, and content authenticity, in which the second part, authentic self, defined as the writer's lived experience, identity, passion, and autonomy expressed through the process of writing, carries most of the weight. The argument runs on content gatekeeping: the practice by which writers decide what goes into the text, which the paper identifies as the main way writers claim contribution and preserve authenticity when co-writing with AI. The study's comparative machinery is a within-subject writing session using the CoAuthor interface with GPT-4, personalized by in-context learning from each writer's 200-word sample versus a non-personalized version, followed by a reader survey that assessed likeability, enjoyment, creativity, attribution, and perceived authenticity.

What would settle it

A replication with a manipulation check, asking writers after each session how much the suggestions sounded like their own voice, would settle the personalization claims: if writers rate the personalized tool no higher than the non-personalized one, the preference and null behavior findings cannot be attributed to personalization; if, with stronger personalization, writers' acceptance rates rise and readers can distinguish the output, the paper's claim that personalization does not change behavior or reader perception would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that writers' conception of authenticity extends beyond the three classic themes of category, source, and value to a fourth, dominant theme: the authentic self. Writers treat authenticity as grounded in lived experience, emotions, passion, autonomy, and the ability to justify putting one's name on the work; they see the work as authentic when it could only have been written by them. Co-writing with AI does not change this definition, but it changes how writers can protect it: the practices that matter include holding a clear vision before writing, calling on AI mainly in the "fuzzy area" between an initial idea and a developed draft, and performing content gatekeeping, which means actively selecting, rejecting, and revising AI suggestions. The paper also claims that readers in a leisurely reading setting cannot reliably distinguish AI-assisted passages from solo work, rate both kinds of AI-assisted work as preserving the writer's authentic voice, and respond positively rather than negatively to writers' use of AI.

Load-bearing premise

The central comparison between personalized and non-personalized AI assumes that one 200-word writing sample is enough for writers to experience the tool as reflecting their voice, but the study never checks whether writers actually did experience it that way.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI writing tools should be judged by whether they support writers' growth and internal experience, not just by the quality of generated text.
  • Personalization that only mimics a writer's surface style is insufficient; support is most valuable before and around text production, in early ideation and feedback.
  • Writers' fear of reader backlash may be overstated in leisurely-reading contexts, since readers in this study could not distinguish AI-assisted writing and viewed AI experimentation positively.
  • Contribution and authorship in co-writing should be understood through content gatekeeping decisions rather than by the proportion of text a writer typed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If authenticity is process-oriented, then tools that maximize output efficiency may undermine the internalization writers value; a testable extension is to compare feedback-only tools against text-generation tools on writers' sense of authenticity.
  • The paper's null behavioral results may reflect a weak personalization manipulation rather than the absence of an effect; a replication with stronger personalization and a manipulation check could change the design implications.
  • The reader positivity may be specific to casual, leisurely reading; professional editing, journalistic, or academic contexts with stricter provenance norms may produce different reactions, which the paper does not test.
  • The "80% me" framing suggests writers track a quantitative contribution ratio; future work could study how that ratio is negotiated when AI suggestions are adopted verbatim versus revised, and whether tools that display such a ratio change behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper examines how professional writers and avid readers conceptualize authenticity in human-AI co-writing, and whether personalization of AI writing assistance supports writers' authentic voice. Part 1 uses semi-structured interviews with 19 professional writers, who each completed two writing sessions with a GPT-4-based CoAuthor interface, one personalized via in-context learning from a 200-word writing sample and one non-personalized. Part 2 is an online survey with 30 avid readers who rated and compared solo-written, personalized-AI, and non-personalized-AI passages produced by six of the writers. The paper reports three main contributions: a writer-centered definition of authenticity emphasizing internal experiences and process, design implications for co-writing tools targeting writer growth, and an account of readers' largely positive and undifferentiating responses to AI-assisted creative writing.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to CSCW/HCI by grounding authenticity in writers' lived experiences and by distinguishing process-oriented authenticity from the category/source/value frameworks in prior literature. The qualitative core is a strength: the study provides a transparent interview protocol, a detailed codebook, a participant table, and extensive verbatim quotes, giving readers direct access to the evidence behind the thematic claims. The mixed-methods design, combining writing logs with interviews and a reader survey, adds behavioral texture. The authors also showed methodological care in screening AI-generated survey responses. The central qualitative claim about process-oriented authenticity is well supported by the interview data; the main weaknesses concern the strength of the claims about reader discrimination and the lack of a manipulation check for the personalization condition.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.4.3; Table 7] The abstract states that "Readers could not distinguish AI-assisted work, personalized or not, from writers' solo-written work," but the paper's own statistical models contradict this. In Table 7 (Round 2), the likelihood-of-human-writing rating differs significantly for solo vs. personalized AI (β = −0.73, SE = 0.25, t = −2.94, p = 0.004) and for solo vs. non-personalized AI (β = −0.64, SE = 0.24, t = −2.57, p = 0.012). Section 4.4.3 correctly reports that reader participants rated the solo human work as more likely to have been written independently. The abstract and the concluding section therefore overstate the finding. The supported claim is that likeability, enjoyment, and creativity ratings did not differ significantly across conditions and readers could not reliably identify which text segments were AI-generated, while judgments of how likely a piece is to have been written by a human did distinguish solo from AI-assisted work. Please revise the abstract, Section 5 discussion, and Section 6 conclusion to align with the actual statistical results.
  2. [Section 3.2.3; Section 4.4.2; Appendix B.3] The paper lacks a manipulation check for the personalization condition. The personalized tool was built by in-context learning from a single ~200-word writing sample, but no pre-reveal measure verifies that writers actually experienced this tool as reflecting their own voice. The only direct question ("Does the personalized AI tool pick up your unique voice, tone, style, etc. in writing?") appears in Appendix B.3, after the experimenter disclosed which of the two tools was personalized. Behavioral logs (Section 4.4.2) show no significant difference between conditions in the frequency of requesting AI assistance or in the rate of accepting suggestions. As a result, the subjective preference findings in Section 4.4.1 and the design implication in Section 5.2 that personalization should support writers' growth rather than merely text production are not firmly tied to the personalization manipulation; they could reflect the condition label, demand characteristics, or the mere presence of the writer's own sample in the prompt. Because RQ3 asks whether personalization can support authenticity, this gap is load-bearing. Please add an appropriate manipulation check (e.g., a pre-reveal rating of perceived stylistic closeness, or a style-similarity analysis of the writing logs using the authors' own writing samples) and temper the causal language in Sections 4.4 and 5.2 accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 7] In the Creativity row for round 1 ("Solo vs. Personalized AI"), the reported values are β = 0.91, SE = 0.25, t = 0.01, p = 0.999. A t value of 0.01 is inconsistent with β/SE ≈ 3.6, and the p value also does not correspond to that t. Please correct the entry and re-verify the reported statistics.
  2. [Appendix G] The survey question in G.2 reads "How much do you creative the writing?" and should be "How creative do you find the writing?".
  3. [Section 4.4.1] The text says "the majority of writers preferred working with personalized writing tools" but does not state the number or proportion; given the quantifier convention defined in Section 4.1 (a few, some, most, nearly all), please report the explicit count for this claim.
  4. [Section 4.4.3] The statement "the rate of correct identification has no significant difference between the personalized and non-personalized conditions" reports only the absence of a difference between conditions; please also report the actual rates and, if available, compare them to chance to support the claim that readers could not identify AI-assisted segments.
  5. [Appendix C] In the codebook, the code "Expedite internationalization" appears; the intended word is presumably "Expedite internalization."
  6. [Section 3.3.2 and Table 7] The relationship among the three data columns ("Round 1", "Round 1 (removed 7 responses)", and "Round 2") is unclear: it is not stated which column corresponds to the primary analysis reported in the text, what the sample size of each column is, and why multiple columns are presented as co-equal. Please clarify the analysis pipeline and designate the primary dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's qualitative findings are induced from interview data, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the single background self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper contains no mathematical derivation, no fitted constants, and no quantity that is defined in terms of the outcome it is used to explain. The central claims about writer-centered authenticity (Sections 4.2 and 5.1) are thematic findings drawn from semi-structured interviews, with the codebook in Appendix C and extensive participant quotes in Table 6 providing transparent grounding. The pre-interview survey does ask writers to define authenticity before they use the AI tools, but that is the research question itself (RQ1), not a presupposed conclusion; the themes of source authenticity, authentic self, and content authenticity are presented as induced from participants' own definitions and reflections. The personalization manipulation in Section 3.2.3 uses a writer's own 200-word sample for in-context learning, but this is an independent-variable manipulation rather than a parameter fitted to a later outcome, so the writers' and readers' reactions to the two conditions are empirical results rather than reductions. The absence of a manipulation check for whether writers actually perceived the personalized tool as voice-matched is a genuine construct-validity concern for RQ3, but it is not circularity; the comparison still tests the manipulation as delivered, and the paper does not claim a statistically forced equivalence. The only apparent self-citation is reference [59] (Robertson et al. 2021), cited in Section 2.2.2 as background on AI-mediated communication; that citation is used to motivate a literature gap, not to justify the paper's findings, and it is externally published empirical work, so under the stated rules it does not raise the circularity score. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed as a new contribution. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks: the interview protocol, codebook, writing-log analyses, and reader-survey statistics in Tables 4, 5, and 7 provide independent support for the reported claims. Accordingly, no circular step is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on self-report data, the assumed effectiveness of one-shot personalization, and the representativeness of the Reddit sample. There are no fitted outcome parameters and no invented theoretical entities such as new forces or conserved quantities.

free parameters (1)
  • GPT-4 generation parameters = temperature=0.9, top_p=1, presence_penalty=0.5, frequency_penalty=0.5, max_tokens=5
    Hand-chosen sampling parameters for the CoAuthor GPT-4 tool (Section 3.2.3); they affect the AI text suggestions participants received but are not fitted to outcomes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Writers' self-reported definitions and experiences reliably capture authenticity in writing.
    The paper's central conclusions rest on interview self-reports and thematic coding (Section 4.1), with no behavioral or objective measure of authenticity.
  • ad hoc to paper In-context learning with a single 200-word writing sample creates a tool perceived as personalized by writers.
    Section 3.2.3 uses this procedure without a manipulation check; if the personalized tool did not reflect a writer's voice, the personalized versus non-personalized comparison (Section 4.4) is weakened.
  • domain assumption Readers recruited from genre subreddits represent avid readers of the six writers' genres.
    Section 3.3.1 recruits from Reddit and generalizes to readers in the abstract; Reddit's demographics differ from the general reading public, as the paper notes in Section 5.5.
  • standard math Five-point Likert responses can be treated as ordinal for Wilcoxon tests and as interval for lmer models.
    Section 4.1 states this choice explicitly; treating single-item Likert as interval in lmer is common but debatable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "It was 80% me, 20% AI": Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNGCJATY

@misc{pith2026241113032,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "It was 80% me, 20% AI": Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNGCJATY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13032}
}
read the original abstract

Given the rising proliferation and diversity of AI writing assistance tools, especially those powered by large language models (LLMs), both writers and readers may have concerns about the impact of these tools on the authenticity of writing work. We examine whether and how writers want to preserve their authentic voice when co-writing with AI tools and whether personalization of AI writing support could help achieve this goal. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 professional writers, during which they co-wrote with both personalized and non-personalized AI writing-support tools. We supplemented writers' perspectives with opinions from 30 avid readers about the written work co-produced with AI collected through an online survey. Our findings illuminate conceptions of authenticity in human-AI co-creation, which focus more on the process and experience of constructing creators' authentic selves. While writers reacted positively to personalized AI writing tools, they believed the form of personalization needs to target writers' growth and go beyond the phase of text production. Overall, readers' responses showed less concern about human-AI co-writing. Readers could not distinguish AI-assisted work, personalized or not, from writers' solo-written work and showed positive attitudes toward writers experimenting with new technology for creative writing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13032 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study procedure for Part 1 (interview study with writers) and Part 2 (survey study with readers). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interface of the CoAuthor system (image adopted from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reader participants’ ratings to compare the three pieces of writing. Left: Ratings for whether a piece of writing is likely to be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reader participants’ ratings for writing passages for each writer. Left: Ratings for whether a piece of writing is likely to be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Readers’ perceptions toward human-AI co-writing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Readers’ perceptions toward the writing, the writer, and their approaches to evaluating work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Summaries of findings from the present research, structured by the relationships between writers’ conceptions of authenticity, their perceptions toward AI writing assistance and personalization, and how these attitudes influence their actual behaviors co-writing with A…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Number of times each writer participant pulled up AI assistance when writing with the personalized vs. non-personalized tools. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Rate (%) of AI suggestions accepted by each writer participant when writing with the personalized vs. non-personalized tools. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Feeling Guilty Being a c(ai)borg: Navigating the Tensions Between Guilt and Empowerment in AI Use

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using three authors' year-long autoethnographic reflections, the paper argues that guilt about AI use can be reframed as growth through literacy, transparency, and critical engagement.

  2. The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid

    cs.HC 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper reframes future work as 'blended', with human effort and AI output inseparable, and charts four HCI research directions.

  3. What Shapes Writers' Decisions to Disclose AI Use?

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A literature synthesis identifies 12 procedural, social, and personal factors that may shape writers' decisions to disclose AI use.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nadia Abbas, Asbjørn Følstad, and Cato A. Bjørkli. 2023. Chatbots as Part of Digital Government Service Provision – A User Perspective . Vol. 13815. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25581-6_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-25581-6_5 2023

  2. [2]

    Anderson

    Thomas C. Anderson. 1993. Sartre’s two ethics: from authenticity to integral humanity . Open Court, Chicago, Ill

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  4. [4]

    Edward M Bruner. 1993. Epilogue: Creative persona and the problem of authenticity. Creativity/anthropology (1993), 321–334

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Daniel Buschek, Martin Zürn, and Malin Eiband. 2021. The Impact of Multiple Parallel Phrase Suggestions on Email Input and Composition Behaviour of Native and Non-Native English Writers. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Artic...

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858498

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Christopher Candlin and Ken Hyland. 1999. Writing: texts, processes, and practices . Longman, London; New York. 29 CSCW ’25, October 18 — 22, 2025, Bergen, Norway Hwang et al

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Stuart Zane Charmé. 1991. Sartre’s Images of the Other and the Search for Authenticity. Human Studies 14, 4 (1991), 251–264. https://www.jstor. org/stable/20010938

    work page arXiv 1991

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Zheng Chen, Ziyan Jiang, Fan Yang, Zhankui He, Yupeng Hou, Eunah Cho, Julian McAuley, Aram Galstyan, Xiaohua Hu, and Jie Yang. 2023. The First Workshop on Personalized Generative AI @ CIKM 2023: Personalization Meets Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM Interna...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Hai Dang, Karim Benharrak, Florian Lehmann, and Daniel Buschek. 2022. Beyond Text Generation: Supporting Writers with Continuous Automatic Text Summaries. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22). Assoc...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hai Dang, Sven Goller, Florian Lehmann, and Daniel Buschek. 2023. Choice Over Control: How Users Write with Large Language Models Using Diegetic and Non-Diegetic Prompting. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Sara De Candia, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Corrado Monti, and Francesco Bonchi. 2022. Social Norms on Reddit: A Demographic Analysis. In 14th ACM Web Science Conference 2022 . ACM, Barcelona Spain, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501247.3531549

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fiona Draxler, Anna Werner, Florian Lehmann, Matthias Hoppe, Albrecht Schmidt, Daniel Buschek, and Robin Welsch. 2023. The AI Ghostwriter Effect: When Users Do Not Perceive Ownership of AI-Generated Text But Self-Declare as Authors. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (dec 2023)...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Shiran Dudy, Steven Bedrick, and Bonnie Webber. 2021. Refocusing on Relevance: Personalization in NLG. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Marie-Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen-tau Yih (Eds.). ...

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. 2024. GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs. Science 384, 6702 (June 2024), 1306–1308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj0998

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren

    Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems . Vol. 16. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 55–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing Using Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Tao Long, and Lydia B Chilton. 2023. Social Dynamics of AI Support in Creative Writing. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Articl...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Matej Gjurković, Mladen Karan, Iva Vukojević, Mihaela Bošnjak, and Jan Snajder. 2021. PANDORA Talks: Personality and Demographics on Reddit. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Social Media , Lun-Wei Ku and Cheng-Te Li (Eds.). ...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Tanya Goyal, Junyi Jessy Li, and Greg Durrett. 2022. News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3. (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/ ARXIV.2209.12356

    2022 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Charles Guignon. 2008. Authenticity. Philosophy Compass 3, 2 (March 2008), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00131.x

    2008

  14. [22]

    Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-Mediated Communication: Definition, Research Agenda, and Ethical Considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (March 2020), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz022

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Richard Handler. 1986. Authenticity. Anthropology Today 2, 1 (1986), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.2307/3032899

    1986 doi

  16. [24]

    Kizilcec, Dominic DiFranzo, Zhila Aghajari, Hannah Mieczkowski, Karen Levy, Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Hancock, and Malte F

    Jess Hohenstein, Rene F. Kizilcec, Dominic DiFranzo, Zhila Aghajari, Hannah Mieczkowski, Karen Levy, Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Hancock, and Malte F. Jung. 2023. Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social relationships. Scientific Reports 13, 1 (April 2023),...

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Nanna Inie, Jeanette Falk, and Steve Tanimoto. 2023. Designing Participatory AI: Creative Professionals’ Worries and Expectations about Generative AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Associ...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, and Sehmon Burnam. 2022. Creative Writing with an AI-Powered Writing Assistant: Perspectives from Professional Writers. arXiv:2211.05030 (Nov. 2022). http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05030 arXiv:2211.05030 [cs]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Shrey Jain, Zoë Hitzig, and Pamela Mishkin. 2023. Contextual Confidence and Generative AI. (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.01193

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [30]

    Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naaman. 2023. Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users’ Views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for 3...

    2023

  21. [31]

    Maurice Jakesch, Megan French, Xiao Ma, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2019. AI-mediated communication: How the perception that profile text was written by AI affects trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2019

  22. [32]

    Hancock, and Mor Naaman

    Maurice Jakesch, Megan French, Xiao Ma, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2019. AI-Mediated Communication: How the Perception That Profile Text Was Written by AI Affects Trustworthiness. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow,...

    2019

  23. [33]

    Maurice Jakesch, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Mor Naaman. 2023. Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 11 (2023), e2208839120

    2023

  24. [34]

    Elise Karinshak, Sunny Xun Liu, Joon Sung Park, and Jeffrey T. Hancock. 2023. Working With AI to Persuade: Examining a Large Language Model’s Ability to Generate Pro-Vaccination Messages. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 116 (apr 2023), 29 pages. https: //doi...

    2023 doi

  25. [35]

    Donal Khosrowi, Finola Finn, and Elinor Clark. 2023. Diffusing the Creator: Attributing Credit for Generative AI Outputs. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Montréal, QC, Canada) (AIES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    2023

  26. [37]

    Molly Kinder, Xavier de Souza Briggs, Mark Muro, and Sifan Liu. [n. d.]. Generative AI, the American worker, and the future of work. https: //www.brookings.edu/articles/generative-ai-the-american-worker-and-the-future-of-work/

  27. [38]

    Barry M. Kroll. 1984. Writing for Readers: Three Perspectives on Audience. College Composition and Communication 35, 2 (May 1984), 172. https://doi.org/10.2307/358094

    1984 doi

  28. [39]

    Tomas Lawton, Kazjon Grace, and Francisco J Ibarrola. 2023. When is a Tool a Tool? User Perceptions of System Agency in Human–AI Co-Creative Drawing. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (DIS ’23). Association for Comput...

    2023

  29. [40]

    Mina Lee, Percy Liang, and Qian Yang. 2022. CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for...

    2022

  30. [41]

    Victor R. Lee. 2023. Generative AI is forcing people to rethink what it means to be authentic. http://theconversation.com/generative-ai-is-forcing- people-to-rethink-what-it-means-to-be-authentic-204347

    2023

  31. [42]

    Lehman, Kieran O’Connor, Balázs Kovács, and George E

    David W. Lehman, Kieran O’Connor, Balázs Kovács, and George E. Newman. 2019. Authenticity. Academy of Management Annals 13, 1 (Jan. 2019), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0047

    2019

  32. [43]

    Charles Lindholm. 2013. The Rise of Expressive Authenticity.Anthropological Quarterly 86, 2 (2013), 361–395. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41857330

    2013

  33. [44]

    Yihe Liu, Anushk Mittal, Diyi Yang, and Amy Bruckman. 2022. Will AI console me when I lose my pet? Understanding perceptions of AI-mediated email writing. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2022

  34. [45]

    Yihe Liu, Anushk Mittal, Diyi Yang, and Amy Bruckman. 2022. Will AI Console Me When I Lose My Pet? Understanding Perceptions of AI-Mediated Email Writing. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Associat...

    2022

  35. [46]

    Bryan Marshall, Peter Cardon, Amit Poddar, and Renee Fontenot. 2013. Does Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?: A Review of Qualitative Interviews in is Research. Journal of Computer Information Systems 54, 1 (Sept. 2013), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

    2013

  36. [47]

    Ali Merali. 2024. Scaling Laws for Economic Productivity: Experimental Evidence in LLM-Assisted Translation. arXiv:2409.02391 (Sept. 2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.02391 arXiv:2409.02391 [cs, econ, q-fin]

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [48]

    Hancock, Mor Naaman, Malte Jung, and Jess Hohenstein

    Hannah Mieczkowski, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Mor Naaman, Malte Jung, and Jess Hohenstein. 2021. AI-Mediated Communication: Language Use and Interpersonal Effects in a Referential Communication Task. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 17 (apr 2021), 14 pages. https:/...

    2021 doi

  38. [49]

    Hannah Nicole Mieczkowski. 2022. AI-Mediated Communication: Examining Agency, Ownership, Expertise, and Roles of AI Systems . Stanford University

    2022

  39. [50]

    Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans

    Piotr Mirowski, Kory W. Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. 2023. 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 (Hamburg, Germany)...

    2023

  40. [51]

    Newman and Paul Bloom

    George E. Newman and Paul Bloom. 2012. Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141, 3 (2012), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026035

    2012 doi

  41. [52]

    Martin Nystrand. 1990. Sharing Words: The Effects of Readers on Developing Writers. Written Communication 7, 1 (Jan. 1990), 3–24. https: //doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007001001

    1990 doi

  42. [53]

    Michigan Journal of Economics. 2024. Is AI taking over the job market? https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2024/01/03/is-ai-taking-over-the-job-market/

    2024

  43. [54]

    Hiroyuki Osone, Jun-Li Lu, and Yoichi Ochiai. 2021. BunCho: AI Supported Story Co-Creation via Unsupervised Multitask Learning to Increase Writers’ Creativity in Japanese. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) ...

    2021

  44. [55]

    Zhenhui Peng, Xingbo Wang, Qiushi Han, Junkai Zhu, Xiaojuan Ma, and Huamin Qu. 2023. Storyfier: Exploring Vocabulary Learning Support with Text Generation Models. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (San Francisco, CA, USA)...

    2023

  45. [57]

    Ritika Poddar, Rashmi Sinha, Mor Naaman, and Maurice Jakesch. 2023. AI Writing Assistants Influence Topic Choice in Self-Presentation. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Association for Comput...

    2023

  46. [58]

    Emily Reif, Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Chris Callison-Burch, and Jason Wei. 2021. A Recipe For Arbitrary Text Style Transfer with Large Language Models. (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2109.03910

    2021 doi arXiv

  47. [59]

    I can’t reply with that

    Ronald E Robertson, Alexandra Olteanu, Fernando Diaz, Milad Shokouhi, and Peter Bailey. 2021. “I can’t reply with that”: Characterizing problematic email reply suggestions. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2021

  48. [60]

    Melissa Roemmele and Andrew S. Gordon. 2018. Automated Assistance for Creative Writing with an RNN Language Model. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion (Tokyo, Japan) (IUI ’18 Companion). Association for Computing Machine...

    2018

  49. [62]

    Jeremy D. Safran. 2017. The unbearable lightness of being: Authenticity and the search for the real. Psychoanalytic Psychology 34, 1 (2017), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/pap0000093

    2017 doi

  50. [63]

    Glassman

    Nikhil Singh, Guillermo Bernal, Daria Savchenko, and Elena L. Glassman. 2023. Where to Hide a Stolen Elephant: Leaps in Creative Writing with Multimodal Machine Intelligence. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30, 5, Article 68 (sep 2023), 57 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511599

    2023 doi

  51. [64]

    Somogy Varga and Charles Guignon. 2023. Authenticity (summer 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford. edu/archives/sum2023/entries/authenticity/

    2023

  52. [65]

    Diyi Yang and Lucie Flek. 2021. Towards User-Centric Text-to-Text Generation: A Survey. Vol. 12848. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83527-9_1

    2021 doi

  53. [66]

    Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Helsinki, Finland) (IUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 841–852. ht...

    2022

  54. [67]

    Zheng Zhang, Jie Gao, Ranjodh Singh Dhaliwal, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2023. VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(San Francisc...

    2023

  55. [68]

    authentic

    Jiawei Zhou, Yixuan Zhang, Qianni Luo, Andrea G Parker, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2023. Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamb...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.