Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) construct fictional worlds by analyzing the setting as a key dimension of narrative space in AI-generated stories. By comparing 1,000 AI-generated narratives from various models with human-authored fiction, the authors identify distinct patterns in the use of five types of narrative space, revealing that LLMs tend to overemphasize "perceived space" while human authors favor "action space." The findings highlight model-specific and language-sensitive differences in worldbuilding strategies, providing insights into the creative capabilities and limitations of LLMs in storytelling.
LLMs systematically prioritize atmospheric elements over character-driven action in storytelling, revealing a fundamental divergence from human authorship.
In this paper, we analyze how Large Language Models (LLMs) employ worldbuilding strategies, focusing on setting as one measurable dimension of storyworld construction. We compare 1,000 AI-generated stories per model in English and German with human-authored fiction from Project Gutenberg. Building on prior work, we operationalize setting through five types of narrative space: "action", "perceived," "visual," "descriptive" and "no space", identified using fine-tuned BERT classifiers for German and English. We generate narratives using GPT 4.1, LlaMA 3.3, Mistral 3.2, and Gemma 3 and compare their spatial distributions to a human-authored baseline. We find that human-authored texts predominantly employ "action space," grounding narratives in embodied character-environment interaction, whereas LLMs systematically overproduce "perceived space," emphasizing atmosphere and affect. This divergence remains stable across narrative time. Overall, our findings show that LLMs exhibit worldbuilding patterns that differ consistently from human-authored fiction in ways that are both model-specific and language-sensitive.
