建议列表vs.连续生成:移动设备上使用生成模型的交互设计会影响文本长度、措辞和感知作者身份

Florian Lehmann, Niklas Markert, Hai Dang, D. Buschek
{"title":"建议列表vs.连续生成:移动设备上使用生成模型的交互设计会影响文本长度、措辞和感知作者身份","authors":"Florian Lehmann, Niklas Markert, Hai Dang, D. Buschek","doi":"10.1145/3543758.3543947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Neural language models have the potential to support human writing. However, questions remain on their integration and influence on writing and output. To address this, we designed and compared two user interfaces for writing with AI on mobile devices, which manipulate levels of initiative and control: 1) Writing with continuously generated text, the AI adds text word-by-word and user steers. 2) Writing with suggestions, the AI suggests phrases and user selects from a list. In a supervised online study (N=18), participants used these prototypes and a baseline without AI. We collected touch interactions, ratings on inspiration and authorship, and interview data. With AI suggestions, people wrote less actively, yet felt they were the author. Continuously generated text reduced this perceived authorship, yet increased editing behavior. In both designs, AI increased text length and was perceived to influence wording. Our findings add new empirical evidence on the impact of UI design decisions on user experience and output with co-creative systems.","PeriodicalId":318322,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2022","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Suggestion Lists vs. Continuous Generation: Interaction Design for Writing with Generative Models on Mobile Devices Affect Text Length, Wording and Perceived Authorship\",\"authors\":\"Florian Lehmann, Niklas Markert, Hai Dang, D. Buschek\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3543758.3543947\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Neural language models have the potential to support human writing. However, questions remain on their integration and influence on writing and output. To address this, we designed and compared two user interfaces for writing with AI on mobile devices, which manipulate levels of initiative and control: 1) Writing with continuously generated text, the AI adds text word-by-word and user steers. 2) Writing with suggestions, the AI suggests phrases and user selects from a list. In a supervised online study (N=18), participants used these prototypes and a baseline without AI. We collected touch interactions, ratings on inspiration and authorship, and interview data. With AI suggestions, people wrote less actively, yet felt they were the author. Continuously generated text reduced this perceived authorship, yet increased editing behavior. In both designs, AI increased text length and was perceived to influence wording. Our findings add new empirical evidence on the impact of UI design decisions on user experience and output with co-creative systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":318322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2022\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2022\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3543758.3543947\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2022","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3543758.3543947","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

神经语言模型具有支持人类写作的潜力。然而,它们的整合以及对写作和输出的影响仍然存在问题。为了解决这个问题,我们设计并比较了两种在移动设备上使用AI进行写作的用户界面,这两种界面可以控制主动性和控制力:1)使用连续生成的文本进行写作,AI逐字添加文本和用户引导。2)写建议,人工智能建议短语,用户从列表中选择。在一项有监督的在线研究中(N=18),参与者使用这些原型和没有人工智能的基线。我们收集了触摸互动、灵感和作者评级以及采访数据。有了人工智能的建议,人们写得不那么活跃,但却觉得自己是作者。不断生成的文本减少了这种感知的作者身份,但增加了编辑行为。在这两种设计中,AI都增加了文本长度,并被认为影响了措辞。我们的发现为UI设计决策对共同创造系统的用户体验和输出的影响提供了新的经验证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Suggestion Lists vs. Continuous Generation: Interaction Design for Writing with Generative Models on Mobile Devices Affect Text Length, Wording and Perceived Authorship
Neural language models have the potential to support human writing. However, questions remain on their integration and influence on writing and output. To address this, we designed and compared two user interfaces for writing with AI on mobile devices, which manipulate levels of initiative and control: 1) Writing with continuously generated text, the AI adds text word-by-word and user steers. 2) Writing with suggestions, the AI suggests phrases and user selects from a list. In a supervised online study (N=18), participants used these prototypes and a baseline without AI. We collected touch interactions, ratings on inspiration and authorship, and interview data. With AI suggestions, people wrote less actively, yet felt they were the author. Continuously generated text reduced this perceived authorship, yet increased editing behavior. In both designs, AI increased text length and was perceived to influence wording. Our findings add new empirical evidence on the impact of UI design decisions on user experience and output with co-creative systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信