arXiv subjects

Tuhin Chakrabarty

Publications and source records attributed to Tuhin Chakrabarty.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Generative AI floods and dilutes the market for books

Generative AI can produce book-length works of fiction at near-zero cost. These books are often dismissed as low-quality ``slop'' that buyers will ignore, and are assumed to carry little commercial weight. We test that assumption with full-text AI detection across 14,419 self-published genre-fiction books sold on Amazon from 2023 to 2026, matched to daily sales records through June 2026. None of these books disclose whether or not they contain AI-produced content. We find that books for which we detected substantial AI text ($>$ 25\%) make up a large share of the catalog but a smaller share of sales. Even so, they reach commercial scale, winning a growing share of sales over time and taking more of the scarce top-rank positions once held by books with no detected AI text. Over this period, the number of books with observed sales in a quarter grew 19.2-fold, while quarterly revenue grew only 8.9-fold. The market therefore added selling books faster than it added revenue, and revenue per selling book fell across most genres. Books with no AI text lose the most ground in genres with high AI diffusion, and most of all where Kindle Unlimited availability is high. Among top-selling books, those with substantial AI text draw on more distinctive language from existing books than do books with no AI text; for these books overlap rises with revenue, a gradient we do not detect for books with no AI text. Generative AI can thus reshape a creative market through scale rather than quality. Our results bear directly on the market-effect question at the center of the fair use defense to copyright infringement.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Alignment Whack-a-Mole : Finetuning Activates Verbatim Recall of Copyrighted Books in Large Language Models

Frontier LLM companies have repeatedly assured courts and regulators that their models do not store copies of training data. They further rely on safety alignment strategies via RLHF, system prompts, and output filters to block verbatim regurgitation of copyrighted works, and have cited the efficacy of these measures in their legal defenses against copyright infringement claims. We show that finetuning bypasses these protections: by training models to expand plot summaries into full text, a task naturally suited for commercial writing assistants, we cause GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.1 to reproduce up to 85-90% of held-out copyrighted books, with single verbatim spans exceeding 460 words, using only semantic descriptions as prompts and no actual book text. This extraction generalizes across authors: finetuning exclusively on Haruki Murakami's novels unlocks verbatim recall of copyrighted books from over 30 unrelated authors. The effect is not specific to any training author or corpus: random author pairs and public-domain finetuning data produce comparable extraction, while finetuning on synthetic text yields near-zero extraction, indicating that finetuning on individual authors' works reactivates latent memorization from pretraining. Three models from different providers memorize the same books in the same regions ($r \ge 0.90$), pointing to an industry-wide vulnerability. Our findings offer compelling evidence that model weights store copies of copyrighted works and that the security failures that manifest after finetuning on individual authors' works undermine a key premise of recent fair use rulings, where courts have conditioned favorable outcomes on the adequacy of measures preventing reproduction of protected expression.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can Good Writing Be Generative? Expert-Level AI Writing Emerges through Fine-Tuning on High-Quality Books

Creative writing has long been considered a uniquely human endeavor, requiring voice and style that machines could not replicate. This assumption is challenged by Generative AI that can emulate thousands of author styles in seconds with negligible marginal labor. To understand this better, we conducted a behavioral experiment where 28 MFA writers (experts) competed against three LLMs in emulating 50 critically acclaimed authors. Based on blind pairwise comparisons by 28 expert judges and 131 lay judges, we find that experts preferred human writing in 82.7% of cases under the in-context prompting condition but this reversed to 62% preference for AI after fine-tuning on authors' complete works. Lay judges, however, consistently preferred AI writing. Debrief interviews with expert writers revealed that their preference for AI writing triggered an identity crisis, eroding aesthetic confidence and questioning what constitutes "good writing." These findings challenge discourse about AI's creative limitations and raise fundamental questions about the future of creative labor.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Readers Prefer Outputs of AI Trained on Copyrighted Books over Expert Human Writers

The use of copyrighted books for training AI has sparked lawsuits from authors concerned about AI generating derivative content. Yet whether these models can produce high-quality literary text emulating authors' voices remains unclear. We conducted a preregistered study comparing MFA-trained writers with three frontier models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) writing up to 450-word excerpts emulating 50 award-winning authors' styles. In blind pairwise evaluations by 28 MFA-trained readers and 516 college-educated general readers, AI text from in-context prompting was strongly disfavored by MFA readers for stylistic fidelity (OR=0.16) and quality (OR=0.13), while general readers showed no fidelity preference (OR=1.06) but favored AI for quality (OR=1.82). Fine-tuning ChatGPT on authors' complete works reversed these results: MFA readers favored AI for fidelity (OR=8.16) and quality (OR=1.87), with general readers showing even stronger preference (fidelity OR=16.65; quality OR=5.42). Both groups preferred fine-tuned AI, but the writer-type X reader-type interaction remained significant (p=0.021 for fidelity; p<10^-4 for quality), indicating general readers favored AI by a wider margin. Effects are robust under cluster-robust inference and generalize across authors in heterogeneity analyses. Fine-tuned outputs were rarely flagged as AI-generated (3% vs. 97% for prompting) by leading detectors. Mediation analysis shows fine-tuning eliminates detectable AI quirks that penalize in-context outputs, altering the nexus between detectability and preference. While not accounting for effort to transform AI output into publishable prose, the median fine-tuning cost of $81 per author represents a 99.7% reduction versus typical writer compensation. Author-specific fine-tuning enables non-verbatim AI writing preferred over expert human writing, providing evidence relevant to copyright's fourth fair-use factor.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Death of the Novel(ty): Beyond n-Gram Novelty as a Metric for Textual Creativity

N-gram novelty is widely used to evaluate language models' ability to generate text outside of their training data. More recently, it has also been adopted as a metric for measuring textual creativity. However, theoretical work on creativity suggests that this approach may be inadequate, as it does not account for creativity's dual nature: novelty (how original the text is) and appropriateness (how sensical and pragmatic it is). We investigate the relationship between this notion of creativity and n-gram novelty through 8,618 expert writer annotations of novelty, pragmaticality, and sensicality via close reading of human- and AI-generated text. We find that while n-gram novelty is positively associated with expert writer-judged creativity, approximately 91% of top-quartile n-gram novel expressions are not judged as creative, cautioning against relying on n-gram novelty alone. Furthermore, unlike in human-written text, higher n-gram novelty in open-source LLMs correlates with lower pragmaticality. In an exploratory study with frontier closed-source models, we additionally confirm that they are less likely to produce creative expressions than humans. Using our dataset, we test whether zero-shot, few-shot, and finetuned models are able to identify expressions perceived as novel by experts (a positive aspect of writing) or non-pragmatic (a negative aspect). Overall, frontier LLMs exhibit performance much higher than random but leave room for improvement, especially struggling to identify non-pragmatic expressions. We further find that LLM-as-a-Judge novelty ratings align with expert writer preferences in an out-of-distribution dataset, more so than an n-gram based metric.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Measuring AI "Slop" in Text

AI "slop" is an increasingly popular term used to describe low-quality AI-generated text, but there is currently no agreed upon definition of this term nor a means to measure its occurrence. In this work, we develop a taxonomy of "slop" through interviews with experts in NLP, writing, and philosophy, and propose a set of interpretable dimensions for its assessment in text. Through span-level annotation, we find that binary "slop" judgments are (somewhat) subjective, but such determinations nonetheless correlate with latent dimensions such as coherence and relevance. Our framework can be used to evaluate AI-generated text in both detection and binary preference tasks, potentially offering new insights into the linguistic and stylistic factors that contribute to quality judgments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Facilitating Longitudinal Interaction Studies of AI Systems

UIST researchers develop tools to address user challenges. However, user interactions with AI evolve over time through learning, adaptation, and repurposing, making one time evaluations insufficient. Capturing these dynamics requires longer-term studies, but challenges in deployment, evaluation design, and data collection have made such longitudinal research difficult to implement. Our workshop aims to tackle these challenges and prepare researchers with practical strategies for longitudinal studies. The workshop includes a keynote, panel discussions, and interactive breakout groups for discussion and hands-on protocol design and tool prototyping sessions. We seek to foster a community around longitudinal system research and promote it as a more embraced method for designing, building, and evaluating UIST tools.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

AI Safety Should Prioritize the Future of Work

Current efforts in AI safety prioritize filtering harmful content, preventing manipulation of human behavior, and eliminating existential risks in cybersecurity or biosecurity. While pressing, this narrow focus overlooks critical human-centric considerations that shape the long-term trajectory of a society. In this position paper, we identify the risks of overlooking the impact of AI on the future of work and recommend comprehensive transition support towards the evolution of meaningful labor with human agency. Through the lens of economic theories, we highlight the intertemporal impacts of AI on human livelihood and the structural changes in labor markets that exacerbate income inequality. Additionally, the closed-source approach of major stakeholders in AI development resembles rent-seeking behavior through exploiting resources, breeding mediocrity in creative labor, and monopolizing innovation. To address this, we argue in favor of a robust international copyright anatomy supported by implementing collective licensing that ensures fair compensation mechanisms for using data to train AI models. We strongly recommend a pro-worker framework of global AI governance to enhance shared prosperity and economic justice while reducing technical debt.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

AI-Slop to AI-Polish? Aligning Language Models through Edit-Based Writing Rewards and Test-time Computation

AI-generated text is proliferating across domains, from creative writing and journalism to marketing content and scientific articles. Models can follow user-provided instructions to generate coherent and grammatically correct outputs but in this work, we study a more fundamental question: how do we evaluate and improve the writing quality of AI-generated text? Writing quality assessment has received less attention from the community, in part because it is fundamentally subjective and requires expertise. We first introduce the Writing Quality Benchmark (WQ) by consolidating five writing-preference datasets into 4,729 writing quality judgments. Our experiments show that most of the competitive baselines, including state-of-the-art LLMs that excel at reasoning tasks, barely outperform random baselines on WQ. We then train specialized Writing Quality Reward Models (WQRM) of various sizes for writing quality assessment that demonstrate strong generalization on four out-of-distribution test sets and 74% accuracy on the WQ benchmark. To further show WQRM's practical benefits during inference, we leverage additional test-time compute to generate and rank multiple candidate revisions, allowing us to select higher-quality outputs from an initial draft. Human evaluation with 9 experienced writers confirm that WQRM-based selection produces writing samples preferred by experts 66% overall, and 72.2% when the reward gap is larger than 1 point. We release our datasets and models to encourage community engagement with writing quality assessment and development of AI writing systems better aligned with human preferences.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through Edits

LLM-based applications are helping people write, and LLM-generated text is making its way into social media, journalism, and our classrooms. However, the differences between LLM-generated and human written text remain unclear. To explore this, we hired professional writers to edit paragraphs in several creative domains. We first found these writers agree on undesirable idiosyncrasies in LLM generated text, formalizing it into a seven-category taxonomy (e.g. clichés, unnecessary exposition). Second, we curated the LAMP corpus: 1,057 LLM-generated paragraphs edited by professional writers according to our taxonomy. Analysis of LAMP reveals that none of the LLMs used in our study (GPT4o, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-3.1-70b) outperform each other in terms of writing quality, revealing common limitations across model families. Third, building on existing work in automatic editing we evaluated methods to improve LLM-generated text. A large-scale preference annotation confirms that although experts largely prefer text edited by other experts, automatic editing methods show promise in improving alignment between LLM-generated and human-written text.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Understanding Figurative Meaning through Explainable Visual Entailment

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in tasks requiring a fine-grained understanding of literal meaning in images and text, such as visual question-answering or visual entailment. However, there has been little exploration of the capabilities of these models when presented with images and captions containing figurative meaning, such as metaphors or humor. To close this gap, we propose a new task framing the figurative meaning understanding problem as an explainable visual entailment task, where the model has to predict whether the image (premise) entails a caption (hypothesis) and justify the predicted label with a textual explanation. The figurative phenomena can be present in the image, in the caption, or both. Using a human-AI collaboration approach, we build the accompanying expert-verified dataset V-FLUTE, containing 6,027 {image, caption, label, explanation} instances spanning five diverse figurative phenomena: metaphors, similes, idioms, sarcasm, and humor. Through automatic evaluation, we find that VLMs struggle to generalize from literal to figurative meaning, particularly when it is present in images. Further, we identify common types of errors in VLM reasoning (hallucination and incomplete or unsound reasoning) across classes of models via human evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

How do Humans and Language Models Reason About Creativity? A Comparative Analysis

Creativity assessment in science and engineering is increasingly based on both human and AI judgment, but the cognitive processes and biases behind these evaluations remain poorly understood. We conducted two experiments examining how including example solutions with ratings impact creativity evaluation, using a finegrained annotation protocol where raters were tasked with explaining their originality scores and rating for the facets of remoteness (whether the response is "far" from everyday ideas), uncommonness (whether the response is rare), and cleverness. In Study 1, we analyzed creativity ratings from 72 experts with formal science or engineering training, comparing those who received example solutions with ratings (example) to those who did not (no example). Computational text analysis revealed that, compared to experts with examples, no-example experts used more comparative language (e.g., "better/worse") and emphasized solution uncommonness, suggesting they may have relied more on memory retrieval for comparisons. In Study 2, parallel analyses with state-of-the-art LLMs revealed that models prioritized uncommonness and remoteness of ideas when rating originality, suggesting an evaluative process rooted around the semantic similarity of ideas. In the example condition, while LLM accuracy in predicting the true originality scores improved, the correlations of remoteness, uncommonness, and cleverness with originality also increased substantially -- to upwards of $0.99$ -- suggesting a homogenization in the LLMs evaluation of the individual facets. These findings highlight important implications for how humans and AI reason about creativity and suggest diverging preferences for what different populations prioritize when rating.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Connecting the Dots: Evaluating Abstract Reasoning Capabilities of LLMs Using the New York Times Connections Word Game

The New York Times Connections game has emerged as a popular and challenging pursuit for word puzzle enthusiasts. We collect 438 Connections games to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) against expert and novice human players. Our results show that even the best performing LLM, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, which has otherwise shown impressive reasoning abilities on a wide variety of benchmarks, can only fully solve 18% of the games. Novice and expert players perform better than Claude 3.5 Sonnet, with expert human players significantly outperforming it. We create a taxonomy of the knowledge types required to successfully cluster and categorize words in the Connections game. We find that while LLMs perform relatively well on categorizing words based on semantic relations they struggle with other types of knowledge such as Encyclopedic Knowledge, Multiword Expressions or knowledge that combines both Word Form and Meaning. Our results establish the New York Times Connections game as a challenging benchmark for evaluating abstract reasoning capabilities in AI systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Identifying Self-Disclosures of Use, Misuse and Addiction in Community-based Social Media Posts

In the last decade, the United States has lost more than 500,000 people from an overdose involving prescription and illicit opioids making it a national public health emergency (USDHHS, 2017). Medical practitioners require robust and timely tools that can effectively identify at-risk patients. Community-based social media platforms such as Reddit allow self-disclosure for users to discuss otherwise sensitive drug-related behaviors. We present a moderate size corpus of 2500 opioid-related posts from various subreddits labeled with six different phases of opioid use: Medical Use, Misuse, Addiction, Recovery, Relapse, Not Using. For every post, we annotate span-level extractive explanations and crucially study their role both in annotation quality and model development. We evaluate several state-of-the-art models in a supervised, few-shot, or zero-shot setting. Experimental results and error analysis show that identifying the phases of opioid use disorder is highly contextual and challenging. However, we find that using explanations during modeling leads to a significant boost in classification accuracy demonstrating their beneficial role in a high-stakes domain such as studying the opioid use disorder continuum.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativity

Researchers have argued that large language models (LLMs) exhibit high-quality writing capabilities from blogs to stories. However, evaluating objectively the creativity of a piece of writing is challenging. Inspired by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which measures creativity as a process, we use the Consensual Assessment Technique [3] and propose the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW) to evaluate creativity as a product. TTCW consists of 14 binary tests organized into the original dimensions of Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration. We recruit 10 creative writers and implement a human assessment of 48 stories written either by professional authors or LLMs using TTCW. Our analysis shows that LLM-generated stories pass 3-10X less TTCW tests than stories written by professionals. In addition, we explore the use of LLMs as assessors to automate the TTCW evaluation, revealing that none of the LLMs positively correlate with the expert assessments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Creativity Support in the Age of Large Language Models: An Empirical Study Involving Emerging Writers

The development of large language models (LLMs) capable of following instructions and engaging in conversational interactions sparked increased interest in their utilization across various support tools. We investigate the utility of modern LLMs in assisting professional writers via an empirical user study (n=30). The design of our collaborative writing interface is grounded in the cognitive process model of writing that views writing as a goal-oriented thinking process encompassing non-linear cognitive activities: planning, translating, and reviewing. Participants are asked to submit a post-completion survey to provide feedback on the potential and pitfalls of LLMs as writing collaborators. Upon analyzing the writer-LLM interactions, we find that while writers seek LLM's help across all three types of cognitive activities, they find LLMs more helpful in translation and reviewing. Our findings from analyzing both the interactions and the survey responses highlight future research directions in creative writing assistance using LLMs.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Learning to Follow Object-Centric Image Editing Instructions Faithfully

Natural language instructions are a powerful interface for editing the outputs of text-to-image diffusion models. However, several challenges need to be addressed: 1) underspecification (the need to model the implicit meaning of instructions) 2) grounding (the need to localize where the edit has to be performed), 3) faithfulness (the need to preserve the elements of the image not affected by the edit instruction). Current approaches focusing on image editing with natural language instructions rely on automatically generated paired data, which, as shown in our investigation, is noisy and sometimes nonsensical, exacerbating the above issues. Building on recent advances in segmentation, Chain-of-Thought prompting, and visual question answering, we significantly improve the quality of the paired data. In addition, we enhance the supervision signal by highlighting parts of the image that need to be changed by the instruction. The model fine-tuned on the improved data is capable of performing fine-grained object-centric edits better than state-of-the-art baselines, mitigating the problems outlined above, as shown by automatic and human evaluations. Moreover, our model is capable of generalizing to domains unseen during training, such as visual metaphors.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

I Spy a Metaphor: Large Language Models and Diffusion Models Co-Create Visual Metaphors

Visual metaphors are powerful rhetorical devices used to persuade or communicate creative ideas through images. Similar to linguistic metaphors, they convey meaning implicitly through symbolism and juxtaposition of the symbols. We propose a new task of generating visual metaphors from linguistic metaphors. This is a challenging task for diffusion-based text-to-image models, such as DALL$\cdot$E 2, since it requires the ability to model implicit meaning and compositionality. We propose to solve the task through the collaboration between Large Language Models (LLMs) and Diffusion Models: Instruct GPT-3 (davinci-002) with Chain-of-Thought prompting generates text that represents a visual elaboration of the linguistic metaphor containing the implicit meaning and relevant objects, which is then used as input to the diffusion-based text-to-image models.Using a human-AI collaboration framework, where humans interact both with the LLM and the top-performing diffusion model, we create a high-quality dataset containing 6,476 visual metaphors for 1,540 linguistic metaphors and their associated visual elaborations. Evaluation by professional illustrators shows the promise of LLM-Diffusion Model collaboration for this task . To evaluate the utility of our Human-AI collaboration framework and the quality of our dataset, we perform both an intrinsic human-based evaluation and an extrinsic evaluation using visual entailment as a downstream task.

cs.CL↗