Cited by 18Social Robot Interaction and HRIArtificial Intelligence in GamesSpeech and dialogue systems

Improbotics: Exploring the Imitation Game Using Machine Intelligence in Improvised Theatre

Open access
Mathewson, Kory, Mirowski, Piotr·2018·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment

Abstract

Theatrical improvisation (impro or improv) is a demanding form of live, collaborative performance. Improv is a humorous and playful artform built on an open-ended narrative structure which simultaneously celebrates effort and failure. It is thus an ideal test bed for the development and deployment of interactive artificial intelligence (AI)-based conversational agents, or artificial improvisors. This case study introduces an improv show experiment featuring human actors and artificial improvisors. We have previously developed a deep-learning-based artificial improvisor, trained on movie subtitles, that can generate plausible, context-based, lines of dialogue suitable for theatre. In this work, we have employed it to control what a subset of human actors say during an improv performance. We also give human-generated lines to a different subset of performers. All lines are provided to actors with headphones and all performers are wearing headphones. This paper describes a Turing test, or imitation game, taking place in a theatre, with both the audience members and the performers left to guess who is a human and who is a machine. In order to test scientific hypotheses about the perception of humans versus machines we collect anonymous feedback from volunteer performers and audience members. Our results suggest that rehearsal increases proficiency and possibility to control events in the performance. That said, consistency with real world experience is limited by the interface and the mechanisms used to perform the show. We also show that human-generated lines are shorter, more positive, and have less difficult words with more grammar and spelling mistakes than the artificial improvisor generated lines.

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 · 10.1609/aiide.v14i1.13030

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • The current state-of-the-art method for longer text generation incorporates a human-in-the-loop who selects from various generations sampled from the model.

    “Because these models do not achieve long-term semantic coherence, the current state-of-the-art method for longer text generation incorporates a human-in-the-loop who selects from various generations sampled from the model [10,67,75].”

    From Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: Evaluation by Industry Professionals (2023) · cites this paper as [67]

    Section 2.2 describes a human controller choosing among model-generated dialogue suggestions, and Section 4.3 says the resulting lines can still be narratively inconsistent. The paper does not establish that this is the state-of-the-art method for longer text generation; Section 4.5 describes its dialogue system as only one component of a larger story-generation system. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 6

  1. [13]13. Hayes-Roth, B., and Van Gent, R. 1996. Improvisational puppets, actors, and avatars. In Proc Comp Game Dev Conf.
  2. [21]21. Knight, H., et al. 2011. A savvy robot standup comic: Online learning through audience tracking. In Conf. on Tangible and Emb. Int.
  3. [30]30. Mori, M., et al. 2012. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 19(2):98-100.
  4. [32]32. Patterson, H. 2013. Playing with Grown Ups. Bloomsbury.
  5. [33]33. Perlin, K., and Goldberg, A. 1996. Improv: A system for scripting interactive actors in virtual worlds. In Proc Conf on Comp. Graphics & Int. Tech., 205-216. ACM.
  6. [39]39. Thomaz, A., et al. 2016. Computational human-robot inter- action. Foun. and Trends in Robotics 4(2-3):105-223.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mathewson, K., & Mirowski, P.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment
Published
2018-09-25
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
59-66
ISSN
  • 2326-909X (ISSN-L)
  • 2334-0924
OpenAlex
W2890043461
Cited by
18
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
improvisational theatre, chatbots, Turing test, dialogue generation, deep learning, film subtitles, rehearsal, audience perception

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