aceExperimental narratives: A comparison of human crowdsourced storytelling and AI storytelling
Abstract The paper proposes a framework that combines behavioral and computational experiments employing fictional prompts as a novel tool for investigating cultural artifacts and social biases in storytelling both by humans and generative AI. The study analyzes 250 stories authored by crowdworkers in June 2019 and 80 stories generated by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in March 2023 by merging methods from narratology and inferential statistics. Both crowdworkers and large language models responded to identical prompts about…
GPT-3.5 and especially GPT-4 produced narratives that were more progressive on gender roles and sexuality than human crowdworker narratives when responding to identical prompts about creating and falling in love with an artificial human.
Findings are bounded by small, time-separated samples and by use of default model settings without additional prompting.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedHumanities and Social Sciences Communications2024-10-28
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-0352, v1: “Experimental narratives: A comparison of human crowdsourced storytelling and AI storytelling.” Truvace, 2026-07-20. /record/TRV-2026-0352 (accessed at citation time). sha256 cd5c7d36567ab2ac…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-0352 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.