3.8 Proceedings Paper

CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3491102.3502030

关键词

Human-AI collaborative writing; GPT-3; language models; dataset; crowdsourcing; natural language generation; writing assistants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the potential and challenges of large language models (LMs) in language generation and proposes the use of curated interaction datasets for more insightful research on their generative capabilities. The COAUTHOR dataset is presented as an example to reveal GPT-3's abilities in creative and argumentative writing. This work contributes to a more principled discussion on the promises and pitfalls of language models in interaction design.
Large language models (LMs) offer unprecedented language generation capabilities and exciting opportunities for interaction design. However, their highly context-dependent capabilities are difficult to grasp and are often subjectively interpreted. In this paper, we argue that by curating and analyzing large interaction datasets, the HCI community can foster more incisive examinations of LMs' generative capabilities. Exemplifying this approach, we present COAUTHOR, a dataset designed for revealing GPT-3's capabilities in assisting creative and argumentative writing. CoAuthor captures rich interactions between 63 writers and four instances of GPT-3 across 1445 writing sessions. We demonstrate that CoAuthor can address questions about GPT-3's language, ideation, and collaboration capabilities, and reveal its contribution as a writing collaborator under various definitions of good collaboration. Finally, we discuss how this work may facilitate a more principled discussion around LMs' promises and pitfalls in relation to interaction design. The dataset and an interface for replaying the writing sessions are publicly available at https://coauthor.stanford.edu.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据