• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

  • Articles
    • Public Policy
    • Privacy & Security
    • Human Rights
      • Ethics
      • JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, Inclusion
    • Climate
    • Design
      • Emerging Technology
    • Application & Adoption
      • Health
      • Education
      • Government
        • Military
        • Public Works
      • Labour
    • Arts & Culture
      • Film & TV
      • Music
      • Pop Culture
      • Digital Art
  • Columns
    • AI Policy Corner
    • Recess
    • Tech Futures
  • The AI Ethics Brief
  • AI Literacy
    • Research Summaries
    • AI Ethics Living Dictionary
    • Learning Community
  • The State of AI Ethics Report
    • Volume 7 (November 2025)
    • Volume 6 (February 2022)
    • Volume 5 (July 2021)
    • Volume 4 (April 2021)
    • Volume 3 (Jan 2021)
    • Volume 2 (Oct 2020)
    • Volume 1 (June 2020)
  • About
    • Our Contributions Policy
    • Our Open Access Policy
    • Contact
    • Donate

Writer-Defined AI Personas for On-Demand Feedback Generation

January 18, 2024

🔬 Research Summary by Karim Benharrak, a first-year CS PhD student at the University of Texas Austin, where I design, develop, and evaluate interactive AI systems to unlock the collaborative potential of Human-AI interaction in content creation processes.

[Original paper by Karim Benharrak, Tim Zindulka, Florian Lehmann, Hendrik Heuer, and Daniel Buschek]


Overview: People write for people: Writing is inherently social, yet writers often lack real-time feedback from their intended audience. To support writers, this paper introduces the concept of ‘AI Personas for On-Demand Feedback.’ Through our new text editor system, Impressona, writers receive feedback from various perspectives on how they define themselves by creating personas of their target reader groups.


Introduction

In a world where writing is an integral part of our daily lives, the challenge of effectively connecting with our readers remains ever-present. How can writers ensure that their words resonate with their intended audience? This research addresses these pressing questions.

The core focus of this study revolves around the concept of “AI Personas for On-Demand Feedback,” a novel approach aimed at empowering writers to receive real-time, reader-oriented feedback on selected parts of their texts. But what does this mean in practice? Writers define personas representing their target readers, and a Large Language Model (LLM) provides insightful feedback on their writing from these multiple perspectives. We implemented this concept in a system called Impressona, a tool designed to bridge the gap between writers and their readers.

The paper explores the effectiveness of AI personas in enhancing the quality of written content and the writer-reader connection. Through two user studies, we uncover how writers perceive and utilize self-defined AI personas while also gaining insight into the capabilities of contemporary LLMs in supporting this concept. With these findings, the paper demonstrates a powerful new tool for writers and contributes to the broader vision of AI’s role in content creation and its impact on the dynamic relationship between creators and their audience.

Key Insights

Here, we delve into the key findings and implications of our study. By allowing writers to define AI personas that provide on-demand feedback, we open new avenues for enhancing the writing process by supporting writers in tailoring their text to their readers/audience.

Empowering Writers to Shape Feedback

In our study, we introduced the concept of Writer-Defined AI Personas. Our concept enables writers to define custom AI personas during the writing process by defining characteristic properties of their imagined readers. The process involves crafting personas based on attributes like expertise, social relation, valence, and level of involvement. For example, writers can create personas like a “strict professor” or a “friendly colleague” with attributes describing their task, background, and preferred style and content. These personas enable writers to gain feedback on specific portions of their text from perspectives they desire.

Understanding Persona Dimensions

Our user studies uncovered a taxonomy of AI personas for feedback, shedding light on the dimensions that writers consider when creating such AI personas. The most commonly observed attribute was expertise, often linked to professional roles and qualifications (e.g., “Oxford Professor,” “NYTimes Journalist”). Social relations also played a significant role, with personas like “best friend” and “my manager” offering different perspectives. Writers also considered the valence (e.g., “mean reviewer”) and level of involvement (e.g., “my Ph.D. colleague,” “Scientific Writer”), providing a range of feedback perspectives.

Quick Access to Multiple Perspectives Through Feedback From AI Personas

Our study revealed that AI personas for feedback offer substantial benefits to writers. Writers highly value and use feedback from these personas, finding it useful and diverse. Most notably, the personas empower writers to consider multiple perspectives, making them step outside their writing and gain fresh insights. Moreover, writers can access feedback from personas they might not easily reach in reality, offering the convenience of instant feedback.

Persona Definition Hurdles and Feedback Verbosity

While the concept of AI personas for feedback is promising, challenges exist. Writers may find it initially difficult to define personas accurately, which could impact the quality of feedback. The feedback generated by AI personas can sometimes be verbose, repetitive, and unspecific, raising questions about the optimal balance between feedback length and usefulness.

Guarding Against Bias and Stereotypes

Our research addresses the critical concern of bias and stereotypes in contemporary AI systems. It highlights the risk of AI models encoding the dominant view and failing to represent changing social perspectives. This is particularly important when considering attributes like gender, race, ethnicity, and disability status. Moreover, while not a major concern in our study, we observed that feedback from AI personas could influence writers’ attitudes on whether to make changes to their content.

In light of these concerns, it’s important to approach the concept of AI personas with caution. Systems that provide AI personas should warn users about the potential limitations of contemporary AI systems regarding representativity. The flexibility of our system, allowing writers to change personas at any time, offers one way for writers to react to unwanted aspects in the feedback if they recognize those themselves.

In conclusion, our research introduces an innovative approach to enhancing writing feedback by empowering writers to define AI personas. While challenges exist, the potential benefits are evident already in our exploration, with key implications for the design of writing support systems: As LLMs continue to shape the way we interact with technology, the concept of AI personas -that can comment on text- opens exciting possibilities for improving the human writing process with opportunities for reflection that empathize with potential reader perspectives.

Between the lines

Shaping the Future of Writing Support

Beyond the specific system and study, this work calls for a shift in our approach to designing AI-driven writing tools: Instead of designing for human-AI interaction, we should consider a broader socio-technical perspective, that is, designing with the writer-reader relationship in mind. This expanded perspective acknowledges the impact of AI on both writers and readers, providing a more comprehensive approach to design.

One of the key insights is the newfound agency given to writers, allowing them to define and refine personas to meet their specific needs. This questions how personas can evolve, adapting to writers’ changing preferences and requirements. Looking ahead, it challenges us to delve deeper into understanding how AI personas can support writers and facilitate connections between writers and readers, transcending traditional writing and publication processes and tools.

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

A network diagram with lots of little emojis, organised in clusters.

Tech Futures: AI For and Against Knowledge

A brightly coloured illustration which can be viewed in any direction. It has many elements to it working together: men in suits around a table, someone in a data centre, big hands controlling the scenes and holding a phone, people in a production line. Motifs such as network diagrams and melting emojis are placed throughout the busy vignettes.

Tech Futures: The Fossil Fuels Playbook for Big Tech: Part II

A rock embedded with intricate circuit board patterns, held delicately by pale hands drawn in a ghostly style. The contrast between the rough, metallic mineral and the sleek, artificial circuit board illustrates the relationship between raw natural resources and modern technological development. The hands evoke human involvement in the extraction and manufacturing processes.

Tech Futures: The Fossil Fuels Playbook for Big Tech: Part I

Close-up of a cat sleeping on a computer keyboard

Tech Futures: The threat of AI-generated code to the world’s digital infrastructure

The undying sun hangs in the sky, as people gather around signal towers, working through their digital devices.

Dreams and Realities in Modi’s AI Impact Summit

related posts

  • Probing Networked Agency: Where is the Locus of Moral Responsibility?

    Probing Networked Agency: Where is the Locus of Moral Responsibility?

  • Research summary: Out of the Laboratory and Into the Classroom: The Future of AI in Education

    Research summary: Out of the Laboratory and Into the Classroom: The Future of AI in Education

  • Studying up Machine Learning Data: Why Talk About Bias When We Mean Power?

    Studying up Machine Learning Data: Why Talk About Bias When We Mean Power?

  • The Sociology of AI Ethics (Column Introduction)

    The Sociology of AI Ethics (Column Introduction)

  • Research summary:  Algorithmic Bias: On the Implicit Biases of Social Technology

    Research summary: Algorithmic Bias: On the Implicit Biases of Social Technology

  • Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View

    Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View

  • Moral consideration of nonhumans in the ethics of artificial intelligence

    Moral consideration of nonhumans in the ethics of artificial intelligence

  • A fair pricing model via adversarial learning

    A fair pricing model via adversarial learning

  • Adding Structure to AI Harm

    Adding Structure to AI Harm

  • Using attention methods to predict judicial outcomes

    Using attention methods to predict judicial outcomes

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer


Articles

Columns

AI Literacy

The State of AI Ethics Report


 

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.

Contact

Donate


  • © 2025 MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.