mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Inspiration through Observation: Demonstrating the Influence of Automatically Generated Text on Creative Writing

arXiv 2107.04007 ↗First posted 8 Jul 2021cs.CL cs.AI cs.HCcited by 14

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Getting machines to generate text perceived as creative is a long-pursued goal. A growing body of research directs this goal towards augmenting the creative writing abilities of human authors. In this paper, we pursue this objective by analyzing how observing examples of automatically generated text influences writing. In particular, we examine a task referred to as sentence infilling, which involves transforming a list of words into a complete sentence. We emphasize "storiability" as a desirable feature of the resulting sentences, where "storiable" sentences are those that suggest a story a reader would be curious to hear about. Both humans and an automated system (based on a neural language model) performed this sentence infilling task. In one setting, people wrote sentences on their own; in a different setting, people observed the sentences produced by the model while writing their own sentences. Readers then assigned storiability preferences to the resulting sentences in a subsequent evaluation. We find that human-authored sentences were judged as more storiable when authors observed the generated examples, and that storiability increased as authors derived more semantic content from the examples. This result gives evidence of an "inspiration through observation" paradigm for human-computer collaborative writing, through which human writing can be enhanced by text generation models without directly copying their output.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2021.

Builds on

16 of 39 references.

References · 16

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
  3. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,182
  4. 2019Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text Generationcited by 793
  5. 2020Evaluation of Text Generation: A Surveycited by 275
  6. 2020Enabling Language Models to Fill in the Blankscited by 121
  7. 2019Do Massively Pretrained Language Models Make Better Storytellers?cited by 90
  8. 2018MaskGAN: Better Text Generation via Filling in the______cited by 89
  9. 2021The Impact of Multiple Parallel Phrase Suggestions on Email Input and Composition Behaviour of Native and Non-Native English Writerscited by 61
  10. 2020STORIUM: A Dataset and Evaluation Platform for Machine-in-the-Loop Story Generationcited by 56
  11. 2020Blank Language Modelscited by 43
  12. 2020Decoding Methods for Neural Narrative Generationcited by 18
4 more
  1. 2020Heteroglossia: In-Situ Story Ideation with the Crowdcited by 12
  2. 2017DeepTinglecited by 11
  3. 2019Fiction Sentence Expansion and Enhancement via Focused Objective and Novelty Curve Samplingcited by 4
  4. 2020Reading Between the Lines: Exploring Infilling in Visual Narrativescited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 4; 2023: 2; 2024: 5; 2025: 2.

14 papers.

Sort:

By area: