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

Seamless AI presents output as a finished, polished product that users consume rather than shape. This risks design fixation: users anchor on AI suggestions rather than generating their own ideas. We propose Generative Friction, which introduces intentional disruptions to AI output (fragmentation, delay, ambiguity) designed to transform it from finished product into semi-finished material, inviting human contribution rather than passive acceptance. In a qualitative study with six designers, we identified the different ways in which designers appropriated the different types of friction: users mined keywords from broken text, used delays as workspace for independent thought, and solved metaphors as creative puzzles. However, this transformation was not universal, motivating the concept of Friction Disposition, a user's propensity to interpret resistance as invitation rather than obstruction. Grounded in tolerance for ambiguity and pre-existing workflow orientation, Friction Disposition emerged as a potential moderator: high-disposition users treated friction as "liberating," while low-disposition users experienced drag. We contribute the concept of Generative Friction as distinct from Protective Friction, with design implications for AI tools that counter fixation while preserving agency.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) raises critical questions about human creativity and individual expression in an era of AI-assisted creation. When do humans adopt AI suggestions, and what are the implications for individual voice? This study examines these questions through a gamified writing exercise where 74 participants (214 responses) replied to prompts while AI-generated word suggestions were available as they wrote. The game simulates a dystopian future in which an AI is attempting to learn from what remains of human individuality, and disincentivizes AI-like writing. In doing so, it attempts to create conditions that reveal authentic user preferences rather than default behaviors, such as accepting a readily available AI-generated suggestion. Note that this is a deliberate inversion of the "helpful assistant" design pattern; the system is explicitly forbidding you from accepting AI suggestions. We analyze user behavior patterns across different task types, user behaviors, and response characteristics to understand the factors influencing human-AI interaction in creative tasks. The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance. It also explores how these choices relate to response patterns, task characteristics, and user behavior. 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.

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.