CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Artistic and Creative ResearchLiterary and Philosophical StudiesArt, Technology, and Culture

A machine in the loop: the peculiar intervention of artificial intelligence in writer’s block

Gilburt, Iona·2024·New Writing
DOI 10.1080/14790726.2023.2223176
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence is changing how we can choose to resolve writing challenges. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are readily accessible to generate text effortlessly. This paper explores the human-AI relationship when generative AI is used to assist a writer suffering from writer’s block. Research shows that talking to others is an effective strategy for blocked writers. This other no longer needs to be a human. I examine what happens when generative AI is brought into the writing loop: the nonlinear process of writing and rewriting a creative piece. The film Adaptation (2002. Directed by Spike Jonze, Performance by Nicolas Cage. Meryl Streep, and Chris Cooper. Columbia), written by Charlie Kaufman, is used as a case study of writer’s block to illustrate several complexities of the disorder and to theorise potential openings and limitations for the use of AI. Through the film, writer’s block is also explored as having a twin pathology of hypergraphia. Writing with AI is seen to mimic peculiarities of creative writing that include projecting one’s inner voice and seeking a false self. In the example of Adaptation, one ultimately comes to appreciate too that suffering through a block unaided can propel a writer to make bold decisions and test the limits of human creativity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14790726.2023.2223176

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Non-experts or writers experiencing writer's block may find initial AI suggestions valuable for starting writing and then edit them to match their voice.

    “Conversely, non-experts or those experiencing writer's block might find initial AI suggestions invaluable to kick-start their writing process, editing and refining AI-generated content to better align it with their own voice and objectives [32].”

    From Shaping Human-AI Collaboration: Varied Scaffolding Levels in Co-writing with Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gilburt, I.
Affiliations
University of the Western Cape (ZA)
Corresponding author
Gilburt, Iona
ORCID
Gilburt, Iona
Venue
New Writing
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-06-22
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
26-37
ISSN
  • 1479-0726 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3107
DOI
10.1080/14790726.2023.2223176
OpenAlex
W4381856760
Cited by
14
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 10 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
40.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
New Writing (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for The Humanities and Social Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Artistic and Creative Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Literary and Philosophical Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art, Technology, and Culture
Keywords
writer's block, generative AI, large language models, ChatGPT, human-AI relationship, creative writing, Charlie Kaufman, hypergraphia, inner speech, false self, rewriting, writing process

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review