Assisted Data Annotation for Business Process Information Extraction from Textual Documents

Machine-learning based generation of process models from natural language text process descriptions provides a solution for the time-intensive and expensive process discovery phase. Many organizations have to carry out this phase, before they can utilize business process management and its benefits. Yet, research towards this is severely restrained by an apparent lack of large and high-quality datasets. This lack of data can be attributed to, among other things, an absence of proper tool assistance for dataset creation, resulting in high workloads and inferior data quality. We explore two assistance features to support dataset creation, a recommendation system for identifying process information in the text and visualization of the current state of already identified process information as a graphical business process model. A controlled user study with 31 participants shows that assisting dataset creators with recommendations lowers all aspects of workload, up to $-51.0\%$, and significantly improves annotation quality, up to $+38.9\%$. We make all data and code available to encourage further research on additional novel assistance strategies.

Collage is the New Writing: Exploring the Fragmentation of Text and User Interfaces in AI Tools

This essay proposes and explores the concept of Collage for the design of AI writing tools, transferred from avant-garde literature with four facets: 1) fragmenting text in writing interfaces, 2) juxtaposing voices (content vs command), 3) integrating material from multiple sources (e.g. text suggestions), and 4) shifting from manual writing to editorial and compositional decision-making, such as selecting and arranging snippets. The essay then employs Collage as an analytical lens to analyse the user interface design of recent AI writing tools, and as a constructive lens to inspire new design directions. Finally, a critical perspective relates the concerns that writers historically expressed through literary collage to AI writing tools. In a broad view, this essay explores how literary concepts can help advance design theory around AI writing tools. It encourages creators of future writing tools to engage not only with new technological possibilities, but also with past writing innovations.

Deceptive Patterns of Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants

Large Language Models have become an integral part of new intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Many are offered commercially with a chatbot-like UI, such as ChatGPT, and provide little information about their inner workings. This makes this new type of widespread system a potential target for deceptive design patterns. For example, such assistants might exploit hidden costs by providing guidance up until a certain point before asking for a fee to see the rest. As another example, they might sneak unwanted content/edits into longer generated or revised text pieces (e.g. to influence the expressed opinion). With these and other examples, we conceptually transfer several deceptive patterns from the literature to the new context of AI writing assistants. Our goal is to raise awareness and encourage future research into how the UI and interaction design of such systems can impact people and their writing.

A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through a large community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions (i.e., fundamental components of an aspect) and codes (i.e., potential options for each dimension) by systematically reviewing 115 papers. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the envisioning and design of new writing assistants.

Writer-Defined AI Personas for On-Demand Feedback Generation

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 AI Ghostwriter Effect: Users Do Not Perceive Ownership of AI-Generated Text But Self-Declare as Authors

Human-AI interaction in text production increases complexity in authorship. In two empirical studies (n1 = 30 & n2 = 96), we investigate authorship and ownership in human-AI collaboration for personalized language generation models. We show an AI Ghostwriter Effect: Users do not consider themselves the owners and authors of AI-generated text but refrain from publicly declaring AI authorship. The degree of personalization did not impact the AI Ghostwriter Effect, and control over the model increased participants' sense of ownership. We also found that the discrepancy between the sense of ownership and the authorship declaration is stronger in interactions with a human ghostwriter and that people use similar rationalizations for authorship in AI ghostwriters and human ghostwriters. We discuss how our findings relate to psychological ownership and human-AI interaction to lay the foundations for adapting authorship frameworks and user interfaces in AI in text-generation tasks.

Choice Over Control: How Users Write with Large Language Models using Diegetic and Non-Diegetic Prompting

We propose a conceptual perspective on prompts for Large Language Models (LLMs) that distinguishes between (1) diegetic prompts (part of the narrative, e.g. "Once upon a time, I saw a fox..."), and (2) non-diegetic prompts (external, e.g. "Write about the adventures of the fox."). With this lens, we study how 129 crowd workers on Prolific write short texts with different user interfaces (1 vs 3 suggestions, with/out non-diegetic prompts; implemented with GPT-3): When the interface offered multiple suggestions and provided an option for non-diegetic prompting, participants preferred choosing from multiple suggestions over controlling them via non-diegetic prompts. When participants provided non-diegetic prompts it was to ask for inspiration, topics or facts. Single suggestions in particular were guided both with diegetic and non-diegetic information. This work informs human-AI interaction with generative models by revealing that (1) writing non-diegetic prompts requires effort, (2) people combine diegetic and non-diegetic prompting, and (3) they use their draft (i.e. diegetic information) and suggestion timing to strategically guide LLMs.

Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users' Views

If large language models like GPT-3 preferably produce a particular point of view, they may influence people's opinions on an unknown scale. This study investigates whether a language-model-powered writing assistant that generates some opinions more often than others impacts what users write - and what they think. In an online experiment, we asked participants (N=1,506) to write a post discussing whether social media is good for society. Treatment group participants used a language-model-powered writing assistant configured to argue that social media is good or bad for society. Participants then completed a social media attitude survey, and independent judges (N=500) evaluated the opinions expressed in their writing. Using the opinionated language model affected the opinions expressed in participants' writing and shifted their opinions in the subsequent attitude survey. We discuss the wider implications of our results and argue that the opinions built into AI language technologies need to be monitored and engineered more carefully.

How to Prompt? Opportunities and Challenges of Zero- and Few-Shot Learning for Human-AI Interaction in Creative Applications of Generative Models

Deep generative models have the potential to fundamentally change the way we create high-fidelity digital content but are often hard to control. Prompting a generative model is a promising recent development that in principle enables end-users to creatively leverage zero-shot and few-shot learning to assign new tasks to an AI ad-hoc, simply by writing them down. However, for the majority of end-users writing effective prompts is currently largely a trial and error process. To address this, we discuss the key opportunities and challenges for interactive creative applications that use prompting as a new paradigm for Human-AI interaction. Based on our analysis, we propose four design goals for user interfaces that support prompting. We illustrate these with concrete UI design sketches, focusing on the use case of creative writing. The research community in HCI and AI can take these as starting points to develop adequate user interfaces for models capable of zero- and few-shot learning.

Beyond Text Generation: Supporting Writers with Continuous Automatic Text Summaries

We propose a text editor to help users plan, structure and reflect on their writing process. It provides continuously updated paragraph-wise summaries as margin annotations, using automatic text summarization. Summary levels range from full text, to selected (central) sentences, down to a collection of keywords. To understand how users interact with this system during writing, we conducted two user studies (N=4 and N=8) in which people wrote analytic essays about a given topic and article. As a key finding, the summaries gave users an external perspective on their writing and helped them to revise the content and scope of their drafted paragraphs. People further used the tool to quickly gain an overview of the text and developed strategies to integrate insights from the automated summaries. More broadly, this work explores and highlights the value of designing AI tools for writers, with Natural Language Processing (NLP) capabilities that go beyond direct text generation and correction.