Reactive Writers: How Co-Writing with AI Changes How We Engage with Ideas

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10374v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 03:40:48 GMT
• Title: Reactive Writers: How Co-Writing with AI Changes How We Engage with Ideas
• Abstract summary: We show that engaging with the AI's suggestions becomes a central activity in the writing process.<n>We term this shift textitReactive Writing: an evaluation-first, suggestion-led writing practice.
• Score: 19.820383662256308
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Emerging experimental evidence shows that writing with AI assistance can change both the views people express in writing and the opinions they hold afterwards. Yet, we lack substantive understanding of procedural and behavioral changes in co-writing with AI that underlie the observed opinion-shaping power of AI writing tools. We conducted a mixed-methods study, combining retrospective interviews with 19 participants about their AI co-writing experience with a quantitative analysis tracing engagement with ideas and opinions in 1{,}291 AI co-writing sessions. Our analysis shows that engaging with the AI's suggestions -- reading them and deciding whether to accept them -- becomes a central activity in the writing process, taking away from more traditional processes of ideation and language generation. As writers often do not complete their own ideation before engaging with suggestions, the suggested ideas and opinions seeded directions that writers then elaborated on. At the same time, writers did not notice the AI's influence and felt in full control of their writing, as they -- in principle -- could always edit the final text. We term this shift \textit{Reactive Writing}: an evaluation-first, suggestion-led writing practice that departs substantially from conventional composing in the presence of AI assistance and is highly vulnerable to AI-induced biases and opinion shifts.

Related papers

• Measuring and Mitigating Persona Distortions from AI Writing Assistance [15.493624238165998]
  Hundreds of millions of people use artificial intelligence (AI) for writing assistance.<n>Here, we evaluate how AI writing assistance distorts writer personas - their perceived beliefs, personality, and identity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T12:31:11Z)
• From Use to Oversight: How Mental Models Influence User Behavior and Output in AI Writing Assistants [70.1699066541501]
  We examine two types of mental models -- functional or related to what the system does, and structural or related to how the system works.<n>We find that while participants in the structural mental model condition demonstrate a better understanding of the system, this can have a backfiring effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T20:50:44Z)
• Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review [53.99984738447279]
  Recent work frames this task as automatic text generation, underusing author expertise and intent.<n>We introduce REspGen, a generation framework that integrates explicit author input, multi-attribute control, and evaluation-guided refinement.<n>To support this formulation, we construct Re$3$Align, the first large-scale dataset of aligned review-response--revision triplets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T14:07:10Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• Must Read: A Systematic Survey of Computational Persuasion [60.83151988635103]
  AI-driven persuasion can be leveraged for beneficial applications, but also poses threats through manipulation and unethical influence.<n>Our survey outlines future research directions to enhance the safety, fairness, and effectiveness of AI-powered persuasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T17:26:31Z)
• Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process [17.275752224799497]
  We identify four overarching design strategies for AI writing support.<n>Our findings reveal that writers' desired levels of AI intervention vary across the writing process.<n>Our findings offer actionable design guidance for developing human-centered writing tools for co-writing with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T21:05:46Z)
• How Problematic Writer-AI Interactions (Rather than Problematic AI) Hinder Writers' Idea Generation [18.06791806791819]
  We show that the impact of genAI on students' idea development depends not only on the AI but also on the students and, crucially, their interactions in between.<n>Students who proactively explored ideas gained new ideas from writing, regardless of whether they used auto-complete or Socratic AI assistants.<n>These findings suggest opportunities in designing AI writing assistants, not merely by creating more thought-provoking AI, but also by fostering more thought-provoking writer-AI interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T22:53:53Z)
• Understanding and Supporting Peer Review Using AI-reframed Positive Summary [18.686807993563168]
  This study explored the impact of appending an automatically generated positive summary to the peer reviews of a writing task.<n>We found that adding an AI-reframed positive summary to otherwise harsh feedback increased authors' critique acceptance.<n>We discuss the implications of using AI in peer feedback, focusing on how it can influence critique acceptance and support research communities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T11:22:12Z)
• "It was 80% me, 20% AI": Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models [97.22914355737676]
  We examine whether and how writers want to preserve their authentic voice when co-writing with AI tools. Our findings illuminate conceptions of authenticity in human-AI co-creation. Readers' responses showed less concern about human-AI co-writing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T04:42:32Z)
• The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies [97.5153823429076]
  The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed. The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z)
• Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond "Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir" [76.44130385507894]
  This paper aims to ground what we dub a 'participatory turn' in AI design by synthesizing existing literature on participation and through empirical analysis of its current practices. Based on our literature synthesis and empirical research, this paper presents a conceptual framework for analyzing participatory approaches to AI design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-01T17:57:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.