Beyond Compliance: How AI Could Help Creative Writers by Refusing Them

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16272v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 06:58:53 GMT
• Title: Beyond Compliance: How AI Could Help Creative Writers by Refusing Them
• Abstract summary: Theoretically, intentional AI non-compliance could introduce such reflection through friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions.<n>We explore reactions to refusals to common requests across writing stages (planning, translating, reviewing)<n>Findings suggest reflective potential depends on heterogeneous preference alignment along situational, cognitive, domain beliefs, and relational dimensions.
• Score: 25.77405942866036
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Mainstream creativity support design prioritizes compliant AI for seamless writing interactions, but concerns over inappropriate AI reliance highlight the need for designs fostering reflection on balanced AI and non-AI resource use. Theoretically, intentional AI non-compliance, refusals (saying ``no'' to requests), could introduce such reflection through friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions. Practically, refusal content/language characteristics lead to nuanced reactions. However, little research empirically focuses on nuances beyond mandatory ethical/technical constraints, on turning refusals into strategic friction for `innocuous' requests. We address this through a qualitative study with 22 creative writers, exploring reactions to refusals to common requests across writing stages (planning, translating, reviewing). Findings suggest that reflective potential depends on heterogeneous preference alignment along situational (e.g., convergent/divergent thinking phases), cognitive (e.g., domain beliefs), and relational (e.g., AI roles) dimensions. We discuss implications for creativity support, broader issues (e.g., AI addiction), and frictional/seamful AI design (e.g., integrating different compliance levels).

Related papers

• Nonslop: A Gamified Experiment in Human-AI Collaborative Writing [4.079191726815924]
  The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance.<n>This gamified approach offers both a framework for studying authentic human-AI interaction and a provocative lens for understanding the tension between efficiency and authenticity in AI-augmented creativity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T17:21:38Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Bridging the Gap in the Responsible AI Divides [1.5120428871017098]
  Tensions between AI Safety (AIS) and AI Ethics (AIE) have increasingly surfaced in AI governance and public debates about AI.<n>We introduce a model that categorizes four modes of engagement with the tensions: radical confrontation, disengagement, compartmentalized coexistence, and critical bridging.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T17:19:30Z)
• 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)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  This study systematically evaluations twelve state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset.<n>Our findings reveal that detectors frequently flag even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We examine what is known about human wisdom and sketch a vision of its AI counterpart.<n>We argue that AI systems particularly struggle with metacognition.<n>We discuss how wise AI might be benchmarked, trained, and implemented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Contestable AI needs Computational Argumentation [15.15970495693702]
  State-of-the-art approaches predominantly neglect the need for AI systems to be contestable. We argue that contestable AI requires dynamic (human-machine and/or machine-machine) explainability and decision-making processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T12:23:18Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Relational Artificial Intelligence [5.5586788751870175]
  Even though AI is traditionally associated with rational decision making, understanding and shaping the societal impact of AI in all its facets requires a relational perspective. A rational approach to AI, where computational algorithms drive decision making independent of human intervention, has shown to result in bias and exclusion. A relational approach, that focus on the relational nature of things, is needed to deal with the ethical, legal, societal, cultural, and environmental implications of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-04T15:29:57Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)

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.