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.

[1]  Anna Y. Q. Huang,et al.  Effects of artificial Intelligence-Enabled personalized recommendations on learners' learning engagement, motivation, and outcomes in a flipped classroom , 2023, Comput. Educ..

[2]  Daniel Buschek,et al.  Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users’ Views , 2023, CHI.

[3]  A. Flanagin,et al.  Nonhuman "Authors" and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge. , 2023, JAMA.

[4]  Tiffany H. Kung,et al.  Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models , 2022, medRxiv.

[5]  J. Kimmerle,et al.  Automated journalism: The effects of AI authorship and evaluative information on the perception of a science journalism article , 2022, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  S. O'Connor,et al.  Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse? , 2022, Nurse education in practice.

[7]  Jeffrey Bardzell,et al.  A Redhead Walks into a Bar: Experiences of Writing Fiction with Artificial Intelligence , 2022, MindTrek.

[8]  Junyi Jessy Li,et al.  News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3 , 2022, ArXiv.

[9]  Yuanzhen Li,et al.  DreamBooth: Fine Tuning Text-to-Image Diffusion Models for Subject-Driven Generation , 2022, 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[10]  D. Buschek,et al.  Beyond Text Generation: Supporting Writers with Continuous Automatic Text Summaries , 2022, UIST.

[11]  D. Buschek,et al.  Suggestion Lists vs. Continuous Generation: Interaction Design for Writing with Generative Models on Mobile Devices Affect Text Length, Wording and Perceived Authorship , 2022, MuC.

[12]  Ning F. Ma,et al.  From Tool to Companion: Storywriters Want AI Writers to Respect Their Personal Values and Writing Strategies , 2022, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[13]  T. Kosch,et al.  The Placebo Effect of Artificial Intelligence in Human–Computer Interaction , 2022, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[14]  Henning Pohl,et al.  Sense of Agency and User Experience: Is There a Link? , 2022, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[15]  Ann Yuan,et al.  Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models , 2022, IUI.

[16]  Hyerim Cho,et al.  Individuals responsible for video games: an exploration of cataloging practice, user need and authorship theory , 2022, J. Documentation.

[17]  Elena L. Glassman,et al.  A Selective Summary of Where to Hide a Stolen Elephant: Leaps in Creative Writing with Multimodal Machine Intelligence , 2022, IN2WRITING.

[18]  Percy Liang,et al.  CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities , 2022, CHI.

[19]  Chris Callison-Burch,et al.  A Recipe for Arbitrary Text Style Transfer with Large Language Models , 2021, ACL.

[20]  Mirco Musolesi,et al.  Copyright in generative deep learning , 2021, Data & Policy.

[21]  Weizhu Chen,et al.  What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3? , 2021, DEELIO.

[22]  Anirudha N. Joshi,et al.  Studying writer-suggestion interaction: A qualitative study to understand writer interaction with aligned/misaligned next-phrase suggestion , 2022, ArXiv.

[23]  Joo-Wha Hong,et al.  AI, you can drive my car: How we evaluate human drivers vs. self-driving cars , 2021, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[24]  Dongwon Lee,et al.  TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generation , 2021, EMNLP.

[25]  Steven Bedrick,et al.  Refocusing on Relevance: Personalization in NLG , 2021, EMNLP.

[26]  Qiyao Peng,et al.  Are you ready for artificial Mozart and Skrillex? An experiment testing expectancy violation theory and AI music , 2020, New Media Soc..

[27]  Eytan Adar,et al.  The Intersection of Users, Roles, Interactions, and Technologies in Creativity Support Tools , 2021, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[28]  B. Bahrami,et al.  Algorithm exploitation: Humans are keen to exploit benevolent AI , 2021, iScience.

[29]  Li Lucy,et al.  Gender and Representation Bias in GPT-3 Generated Stories , 2021, NUSE.

[30]  N Dehouche,et al.  Plagiarism in the age of massive Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT-3) , 2021, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics.

[31]  J. J. Higgins,et al.  An Aligned Rank Transform Procedure for Multifactor Contrast Tests , 2021, UIST.

[32]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Creepy Technology:What Is It and How Do You Measure It? , 2021, CHI.

[33]  Daniel Buschek,et al.  The Impact of Multiple Parallel Phrase Suggestions on Email Input and Composition Behaviour of Native and Non-Native English Writers , 2021, CHI.

[34]  Robert Dale,et al.  GPT-3: What’s it good for? , 2020, Natural Language Engineering.

[35]  Diyi Yang,et al.  Towards User-Centric Text-to-Text Generation: A Survey , 2021, TDS.

[36]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  GPT-3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences , 2020, Minds and Machines.

[37]  T. Gruber,et al.  Virtual reality experiences promote autobiographical retrieval mechanisms: Electrophysiological correlates of laboratory and virtual experiences , 2020, Psychological Research.

[38]  Katherine Elkins,et al.  Can GPT-3 Pass a Writer’s Turing Test? , 2020, Journal of Cultural Analytics.

[39]  Mark Chen,et al.  Language Models are Few-Shot Learners , 2020, NeurIPS.

[40]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Predictive text encourages predictable writing , 2020, IUI.

[41]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy , 2020, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[42]  C. Asay Independent Creation in a World of AI , 2019 .

[43]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  The Limits of Expert Text Entry Speed on Mobile Keyboards with Autocorrect , 2019, MobileHCI.

[44]  Per Ola Kristensson,et al.  How do People Type on Mobile Devices?: Observations from a Study with 37,000 Volunteers , 2019, MobileHCI.

[45]  Bob L. Sturm,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Music: Open Questions of Copyright Law and Engineering Praxis , 2019, Arts.

[46]  Thomas Gruber,et al.  Experiences in Virtual Reality: a Window to Autobiographical Memory , 2019 .

[47]  Andrew M. Dai,et al.  Gmail Smart Compose: Real-Time Assisted Writing , 2019, KDD.

[48]  Evangelos Karapanos,et al.  23 Ways to Nudge: A Review of Technology-Mediated Nudging in Human-Computer Interaction , 2019, CHI.

[49]  T. Roos,et al.  AI-generated content: authorship and inventorship in the age of artificial intelligence , 2019, Online Distribution of Content in the EU.

[50]  Joonhwan Lee,et al.  Designing an Algorithm-Driven Text Generation System for Personalized and Interactive News Reading , 2019, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[51]  Veronique Kiermer,et al.  How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship , 2019, Learn. Publ..

[52]  Michael Koliska,et al.  Defying transparency: Ghostwriting from the Jazz Age to social media , 2018, Journalism.

[53]  Jani Ihalainen Computer creativity: artificial intelligence and copyright , 2018 .

[54]  Fei Su,et al.  Automatic Conditional Generation of Personalized Social Media Short Texts , 2018, PRICAI.

[55]  Ivan P. Yamshchikov,et al.  Guess who? Multilingual Approach For The Automated Generation Of Author-Stylized Poetry , 2018, 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT).

[56]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Sentiment Bias in Predictive Text Recommendations Results in Biased Writing , 2018, Graphics Interface.

[57]  Florian Alt,et al.  ResearchIME: A Mobile Keyboard Application for Studying Free Typing Behaviour in the Wild , 2018, CHI.

[58]  Karrie Karahalios,et al.  The Illusion of Control: Placebo Effects of Control Settings , 2018, CHI.

[59]  Rosalind W. Picard,et al.  A Trip to the Moon: Personalized Animated Movies for Self-reflection , 2018, CHI.

[60]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Baysefactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs , 2018 .

[61]  R. Dar,et al.  The Sense of Agency Scale: A Measure of Consciously Perceived Control over One's Mind, Body, and the Immediate Environment , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[62]  Lukasz Kaiser,et al.  Attention is All you Need , 2017, NIPS.

[63]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  On Suggesting Phrases vs. Predicting Words for Mobile Text Composition , 2016, UIST.

[64]  Sanjay Ghosh,et al.  Does prediction really help in Marathi text input?: empirical analysis of a longitudinal study , 2016, MobileHCI.

[65]  David Robinson,et al.  tidytext: Text Mining and Analysis Using Tidy Data Principles in R , 2016, J. Open Source Softw..

[66]  Lisa M. Lines Ghostwriters guaranteeing grades? The quality of online ghostwriting services available to tertiary students in Australia , 2016 .

[67]  Peter Young,et al.  Smart Reply: Automated Response Suggestion for Email , 2016, KDD.

[68]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  WatchWriter: Tap and Gesture Typing on a Smartwatch Miniature Keyboard with Statistical Decoding , 2016, CHI.

[69]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  A Cost-Benefit Study of Text Entry Suggestion Interaction , 2016, CHI.

[70]  Christine Bauer,et al.  Solving the Battle of First-Authorship: Using Interactive Technology to Highlight Contributions , 2016, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[71]  Soojin Jun,et al.  Appropriate or Remix? The Effects of Social Recognition and Psychological Ownership on Intention to Share in Online Communities , 2016, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[72]  Andreas Graefe,et al.  Guide to automated journalism , 2016 .

[73]  Deborah Brandt "Who's the President?": Ghostwriting and Shifting Values in Literacy , 2016 .

[74]  Anna Rumshisky,et al.  GhostWriter: Using an LSTM for Automatic Rap Lyric Generation , 2015, EMNLP.

[75]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Effects of Language Modeling and its Personalization on Touchscreen Typing Performance , 2015, CHI.

[76]  Per Ola Kristensson,et al.  VelociTap: Investigating Fast Mobile Text Entry using Sentence-Based Decoding of Touchscreen Keyboard Input , 2015, CHI.

[77]  Marjorie M. K. Hlava,et al.  Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit , 2015, Learn. Publ..

[78]  Per Ola Kristensson,et al.  The inviscid text entry rate and its application as a grand goal for mobile text entry , 2014, MobileHCI '14.

[79]  M. Nylenna,et al.  Authorship: attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers , 2014, BMC Medical Ethics.

[80]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Both complete and correct?: multi-objective optimization of touchscreen keyboard , 2014, CHI.

[81]  Marjorie M. K. Hlava,et al.  Publishing: Credit where credit is due , 2014, Nature.

[82]  Toby Hopp,et al.  Is Ghost Blogging Like Speechwriting? A Survey of Practitioners About the Ethics of Ghost Blogging , 2013 .

[83]  J. Born,et al.  About sleep's role in memory. , 2013, Physiological reviews.

[84]  Reid Swanson,et al.  Say Anything: Using Textual Case-Based Reasoning to Enable Open-Domain Interactive Storytelling , 2012, TIIS.

[85]  J. Hayes Modeling and Remodeling Writing , 2012 .

[86]  Mark D. Dunlop,et al.  Multidimensional pareto optimization of touchscreen keyboards for speed, familiarity and improved spell checking , 2012, CHI.

[87]  A. Flanagin,et al.  Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[88]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Inference of Perceived Usability From Beauty , 2010, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[89]  E. Veitch,et al.  Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got Bigger , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[90]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature? , 2009, PLoS medicine.

[91]  C. Bartneck,et al.  Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots , 2008, HRI 2008.

[92]  Irfan A. Essa,et al.  The evolution of authorship in a remix society , 2007, HT '07.

[93]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[94]  J. L. Pierce,et al.  The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research , 2003 .

[95]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[96]  Stuart C. Brown,et al.  Crafting a public image: An empirical study of the ethics of ghostwriting , 1996 .

[97]  Michael R. Harwell,et al.  Summarizing Monte Carlo Results in Methodological Research: The One- and Two-Factor Fixed Effects ANOVA Cases , 1992 .

[98]  D. Jeffery Higginbotham,et al.  Evaluation of keystroke savings across five assistive communication technologies , 1992 .

[99]  J. Hayes,et al.  A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing , 1981, College Composition & Communication.

[100]  G. Glass,et al.  Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance , 1972 .

[101]  R. D'Agostino An omnibus test of normality for moderate and large size samples , 1971 .