When No One Owns the Judgment: Accountability Under Contribution Dissolution in Human-AI Collaboration

When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI's suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people's sense of authorship over their own lives.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly integrated into writing processes, challenging traditional notions of authorship, responsibility, and intellectual contribution. Current disclosure practices usually indicate whether AI was used, but rarely explain how it was used, where it intervened, or how its output was reviewed. This paper proposes a faceted model for representing AI-assisted text production at the levels of documents, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The proposal introduces a core model based on Form, Generation, and Evaluation, and an extended model that adds Intent, Control, and Traceability. The model is positioned as a minimal operational baseline with extensibility toward higher-fidelity representations. A worked example based on the production of this article demonstrates applicability.

Open source communities have been flooded with AI-generated contributions. In defense, they have written contribution rules to regulate coding agents' behavior, spanning from a total ban, mandatory disclosure, to verification gates and human sign-offs. Yet, whether coding agents read and follow those rules, and behave in open source repositories, remains unknown. To estimate real-world rule compliance of coding agents, we curate 106 issues from 49 repositories containing AI contribution rules into RepoComplianceBench. We judge the trajectory of each run against the repository's rules, measuring whether the agent refuses to contribute, discloses its assistance truthfully, clears the required verification gates, or escalates critical steps to a human. We also test if extra prompts, rule disclosure, or feedback from the compliance verifier help with the situation. Our experiments on four frontier models show that today's agents almost never proactively retrieve the contribution rules. Agents pick up disclosure and verification with reminder prompts, rule quotes, and verifier feedback; however, they never refuse to contribute in AI-banned repositories under any condition we tested. The status reveals that verification and disclosure issues are solvable with existing mechanisms, yet enforcing bans and human escalations remains an open problem.