CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 65Artificial Intelligence in GamesNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

Creative Writing with an AI-Powered Writing Assistant: Perspectives from Professional Writers

Open access
Ippolito, Daphne, Yuan, Ann, Coenen, Andy, Burnam, Sehmon·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2211.05030arXiv 2211.05030
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent developments in natural language generation (NLG) using neural language models have brought us closer than ever to the goal of building AI-powered creative writing tools. However, most prior work on human-AI collaboration in the creative writing domain has evaluated new systems with amateur writers, typically in contrived user studies of limited scope. In this work, we commissioned 13 professional, published writers from a diverse set of creative writing backgrounds to craft stories using Wordcraft, a text editor with built-in AI-powered writing assistance tools. Using interviews and participant journals, we discuss the potential of NLG to have significant impact in the creative writing domain--especially with respect to brainstorming, generation of story details, world-building, and research assistance. Experienced writers, more so than amateurs, typically have well-developed systems and methodologies for writing, as well as distinctive voices and target audiences. Our work highlights the challenges in building for these writers; NLG technologies struggle to preserve style and authorial voice, and they lack deep understanding of story contents. In order for AI-powered writing assistants to realize their full potential, it is essential that they take into account the diverse goals and expertise of human writers.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2211.05030

Cites

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?

  • It is plausible that AI-assisted language learning may also be advantageous for other writing genres, such as creative writing and argumentative writing.

    “Consequently, it is plausible to posit that this approach may also be advantageous for other writing genres, such as creative writing and argumentative writing (Ippolito et al., 2022; Su et al., 2023).”

    From Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students (2023) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2022

    The Abstract and Conclusion describe potential benefits of AI assistance for creative writing, including making parts of the process easier, faster, and more fun. The paper studies professional writers, however, and does not establish benefits for language learners or argumentative writing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prior studies have highlighted AI's contribution to vocabulary development and writing fluency.

    “This mirrors the findings of studies that have highlighted AI’s contribution to vocabulary development and writing fluency (Ippolito et al., 2022; Su et al., 2023).”

    From Enhancing academic writing skills and motivation: assessing the efficacy of ChatGPT in AI-assisted language learning for EFL students (2023) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2022

    The Conclusion says participants saw potential for AI to make parts of creative writing easier and faster, which partly supports the writing-fluency claim. But the paper does not report vocabulary development, and its account of faster writing is a perceived possibility rather than a measured improvement. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prior studies revealed inherent limitations with LLM-based creative writing, including repetitive, predictable, and clichéd responses, challenges in maintaining the writer's unique style and voice, and superficial language understanding abilities.

    “Both studies revealed inherent limitations with LLM-based creative writing, including the generation of repetitive, predictable, and clichéd responses, challenges in maintaining the writer's unique style and voice, and superficial language understanding abilities.”

    From Game Plot Design With an LLM-Powered Assistant: An Empirical Study With Game Designers (2026) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2022

    Sections 7.1, 7.2, and 7.5 report difficulty maintaining writers’ voices, suggestions that revert to tropes and repetition, and superficial language understanding. But Section 9 says the study cannot distinguish limitations of the underlying model from those of Wordcraft’s interface and implementation, so it does not establish that these are inherent limitations of LLM-based creative writing generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI has the potential to support a variety of creative writing activities and aspects of the creative writing process.

    “Such research has demonstrated that AI has the potential to support a variety of creative writing activities and aspects of the creative writing process.”

    From Where Do I 'Add the Egg'?: Exploring Agency and Ownership in AI Creative Co-Writing Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [29]

  • These findings are in line with previous studies about AI assistants for creative writing.

    “Participants described the generations as straightforward and obvious, echoing the findings from previous studies about AI assistants for creative writing (Ippolito et al., 2022; Chakrabarty et al., 2024).”

    From Game Plot Design With an LLM-Powered Assistant: An Empirical Study With Game Designers (2026) · cites this paper as Ippolito et al., 2022

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

Still being checked.

This paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ippolito, D., Yuan, A., Coenen, A., & Burnam, S.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Ippolito, Daphne
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2211.05030
arXiv
2211.05030
OpenAlex
W4308759793
Cited by
52
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
creative writing, natural language generation, human-AI collaboration, professional writers, brainstorming, world-building, research support, authorial voice, style preservation, story generation

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