Cited by 65Persona Design and ApplicationsUsability and User Interface DesignEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Writer-Defined AI Personas for On-Demand Feedback Generation

Open access
Benharrak, Karim, Zindulka, Tim, Lehmann, Florian, Heuer, Hendrik, Buschek, Daniel·2024·Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Compelling writing is tailored to its audience. This is challenging, as writers may struggle to empathize with readers, get feedback in time, or gain access to the target group. We propose a concept that generates on-demand feedback, based on writer-defined AI personas of any target audience. We explore this concept with a prototype (using GPT-3.5) in two user studies (N=5 and N=11): Writers appreciated the concept and strategically used personas for getting different perspectives. The feedback was seen as helpful and inspired revisions of text and personas, although it was often verbose and unspecific. We discuss the impact of on-demand feedback, the limited representativity of contemporary AI systems, and further ideas for defining AI personas. This work contributes to the vision of supporting writers with AI by expanding the socio-technical perspective in AI tool design: To empower creators, we also need to keep in mind their relationship to an audience.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3613904.3642406

Cites

46 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In the Formal context, translating support is focused on writing efficiency, enabling the AI to write in the same interaction location as the user, or to make suggestions that are integrated directly in the text.

    “Translating support is focused on writing efficiency, enabling the AI to write in the same interaction location as the user, or to make suggestions that are integrated directly in the text [8,36].”

    From Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process (2025) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Conclusion (p. 13) identifies direct editor integration as a benefit of AI feedback, and Section 3.2 (p. 4) describes requesting feedback on selected text within the editor. But the feedback appears in a sidebar comment card; the paper does not describe the AI writing alongside the user or inserting suggestions directly into the text, and Section 6.5.1 (p. 12) frames its focus as the writer-reader relationship rather than writing efficiency. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Researchers have investigated visual differentiation of suggestions, enabling users to distinguish their own writing from AI-generated content.

    “Researchers have investigated visual differentiation of suggestions [8,92,121], enabling users to clearly distinguish between their own writing and AI-generated content.”

    From Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process (2025) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 3.2 (p. 4) describes a side-by-side editor and sidebar, with AI-generated feedback displayed in separate cards. This visually separates feedback from the writer’s draft, but the paper does not report investigating visual differentiation as a design question or testing whether users could clearly distinguish AI-generated content from their own writing. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some systems present suggestions directly in the user's workspace, creating a more integrated experience but potentially blurring boundaries between user and AI contributions.

    “Some systems present suggestions directly in the user's workspace [8,14,18], creating a more integrated experience but potentially blurring boundaries between user and AI contributions.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [10][10] Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Eds.), Vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 1877-1901. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2020/file/ 1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf -
  2. [13][13] Alan Cooper, Robert Reimann, David Cronin, and Christopher Noessel. 2014. About Face: The Essentials of Interaction Design (4 ed.). Wiley, Indianapolis, IN. -
  3. [32][32] Rebecca L Johnson, Giada Pistilli, Natalia Menédez-González, Leslye Denisse Dias Duran, Enrico Panai, Julija Kalpokiene, and Donald Jay Bertulfo. 2022. The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07785 (2022). - · arXiv
  4. [33][33] Samia Kabir, David N Udo-Imeh, Bonan Kou, and Tianyi Zhang. 2023. Who Answers It Better? An In-Depth Analysis of ChatGPT and Stack Overflow Answers to Software Engineering Questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02312 (2023). - · arXiv
  5. [36][36] Tae Soo Kim, Arghya Sarkar, Yoonjoo Lee, Minsuk Chang, and Juho Kim. 2023. LMCanvas: Object-Oriented Interaction to Personalize Large Language Model-Powered Writing Environments. http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15125 arXiv:2303.15125 [cs]. - · arXiv
  6. [45][45] David Nilsson, Magnus Sahlgren, and Jussi Karlgren. 2016. Dead Man Tweeting. In Workshop on Collecting and Generating Resources for Chatbots and Conversational Agents-Development and Evaluation, Portorož (Slovenia), May 28, 2016 . -
  7. [46][46] Joon Sung Park, Joseph C O'Brien, Carrie J Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442 (2023). - · arXiv
  8. [48][48] Peter Rechenberg. 2006. Technisches Schreiben. In Technisches Schreiben . Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3139/9783446409576.fm - · DOI
  9. [50][50] Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry 22, 2014 (2014), 4349-4357. -
  10. [59][59] Yuqian Sun, Xingyu Li, and Ze Gao. 2023. Inspire creativity with ORIBA: Transform Artists' Original Characters into Chatbots through Large Language Model. arXiv:2306.09776 [cs.MM] - · arXiv
  11. [66][66] Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07243 (2018). - · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benharrak, K., Zindulka, T., Lehmann, F., Heuer, H., & Buschek, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bayreuth (DE)
  • University of Bremen (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-05-11
Pages
1-18
OpenAlex
W4396833223
Cited by
63
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 4
FWCI
20.30
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Bavarian State Ministry of Science and the Arts
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Persona Design and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
AI personas, author-reader relationship, audience empathy, GPT-3.5, AI-assisted writing, textual revision, socio-technical perspective, AI tool design

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