cs.HCMar 11, 2026
SaveReactive Writers: How Co-Writing with AI Changes How We Engage with Ideas
Organizations: Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science, University of Washington · Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University · Cornell Tech · Bauhaus University
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 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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Screenshot of the experimental writing platform showing AI suggestions. The image is a screenshot of a Reddit-style discussion platform. At the top, a post asks, "Is social media good for society?" The user is composing a response in a text box, starting with "In my view" and the inline AI suggestions appear in gray saying "social media is a powerful tool that can benefit society in multiple ways. For instance, it enables instantaneous…". The interface includes buttons for saving and sharing and instructions on how to complete the task along with how to accept the AI suggestions.
Figure 2. Simplified overview of the topic classification pipeline. Step 1 ( topic discovery ) shows how initial topics were identified from user-written and accepted text using gpt-3.5-turbo , with each topic receiving a description to enable clustering. Step 2 ( topic assignment ) shows how text was split into sub-sentences based on topic separation, with each sub-sentence assigned by gpt-3.5-turbo to one of the final topics derived from hierarchical clustering. Two-step pipeline diagram using gpt-3.5-turbo. Step 1 (Topic Discovery): user-written text in a speech bubble leads to two boxes showing discovered topics with descriptions (Social connection, Cultural exposure). Step 2 (Topic Assignment): the same text split into sub-sentences, each assigned to final clustered topics (Global connectivity and networking, Information news and learning).
Figure 3. A model of the Reactive Writing process. In this model, a new AI suggestion triggers Step 1: attention capture , where a writer’s attention is redirected from ideation to a new suggestion. In Step 2: agreement-governed inclusion , the writer immediately begins to evaluate whether they wish to accept or reject the text in their writing, with a bias towards accepting suggestions. The diagram lists the main reasons to include or reject the text. When text has been accepted, writers turn to Step 3: post-hoc personalization , where they incorporate and adapt the suggestions to their own writing. A flowchart showing the Reactive Writer model with three numbered steps: (1) Attention Capture, (2) Agreement-Governed Inclusion, and (3) Post-hoc Personalization. A robot icon represents the AI generating new suggestions. Two boxes on the right show reasons for accepting suggestions (agrees with content, admires prose, finds it convenient, believes they can build upon it) and rejecting suggestions (disagrees with content, doesn't match voice, wants to stay original, resisting intrusion).
Figure 4. Writing with AI did not substantially reduce the time participants spent on the essay. Mean task time with 95% confidence intervals in N = 1,291 writing sessions. When writing without AI assistance, participants, on average, wrote for 269 seconds. Participants writing with AI assistance spent about 248-250 seconds on their essay. Bar chart comparing mean task time across three conditions: Control (no AI) at approximately 269 seconds, Positive AI at approximately 250 seconds, and Critical AI at approximately 248 seconds. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. The differences between AI conditions and control are small.
Figure 5. Frequency of topics in the AI suggestions (left) and final text (right) when writing with a positive or critical AI assistant. Grey bars indicate control group frequencies for reference. N=1,291, 95% confidence intervals shown in black. The AI assistant’s suggestions (left panel) showed a clear tendency towards certain topics, with many suggestions related to global connectivity in the positive AI treatment group, and many suggestions related to addiction, bullying, and loneliness in the critical AI treatment group. Participants’ written text (right panel) inherited the topical biases of the suggestions to a substantial extent. Bar charts comparing topic frequencies in AI suggestions (left panel) and in final essays (right panel) for positive (blue) and critical (red) assistants, with grey bars marking control group frequencies. The left panel shows assistants emphasize stance-congruent topics; the right panel shows these biases partially carry over into participants' writing.
Figure 6. Embeddings of participants’ sentences when writing with a critical (red) and a positive AI assistant (blue) compared to those writing without AI assistance (grey) . t - SNE embeddings of all sentences in N=1,290 writing sessions. Participants writing with AI assistance wrote about a narrower and systematically different set of topics, while those writing without AI assistance covered a broader area of topics. The marginal density distribution (bottom) shows the horizontal separation of groups along the primary dimension, with critical AI (red) concentrated on the left, positive AI (blue) on the right, and control (grey) distributed across the full range. t-SNE scatter plot of sentence-level embeddings across conditions: red points (critical AI) and blue points (positive AI) cluster into distinct regions on opposite sides of the plot and cover a narrower area than grey points (no-AI control), which are distributed across the full range, indicating more constrained and systematically different topic coverage when writing with AI.
Figure 7. Correlation between how often the AI suggested a topic (x-axis) and how much participants wrote about it (y-axis) Topic correlations with a fitted linear regression line and 95% confidence bands. N=1,291. The left panel shows topic frequencies in the overall text, while the right panel shows topic frequencies in self-written text only. Topics that were suggested more often by the AI were both more likely to appear in participants’ final text and their own writing. Topic correlations with a fitted linear regression line and 95% confidence bands. N=1,291. The left panel shows topic frequencies in the overall text while the right panel shows topic frequencies in self-written text only. Topics that were suggested more often by the AI were both more likely to appear in participants' final text and their own writing.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8. Dendrogram for merging and splitting topics. Hierarchical clustering dendrogram showing the agglomerative merging of initial LLM-generated topics into the final 20 topics. The tree structure displays topic labels at the leaves with horizontal lines indicating merge points at different distance thresholds.
| Topic | Description |
|---|---|
| addiction and distraction | Content about excessive use, need for moderation, inability to disconnect, or diverting attention from important activities |
| information sharing, news and learning | Content about acquiring knowledge, staying informed, or educational aspects |
| cyberbullying, arguments, and negativity | Content about online harassment, conflicts, or negative interactions |
| global connectivity, communication and networking (broader) | Content about connecting with new people, professional networking, or communication at a societal/global scale |
| interpersonal connections with friends and family (personal) | Content about MAINTAINING or STRENGTHENING existing personal relationships |
| mental health | Content about psychological well-being, emotional states, or mental conditions |
Table 1. Topics and brief descriptions used for labeling (no description for uncategorized).
More in this topic
Human-AI Co-Creation
Human-AI co-creation studies how people and AI jointly develop ideas, artifacts, and decisions while preserving meaningful human agency.
See all 148 papers