As large language models (LLMs) become embedded in interactive text generation, disclosure of AI as a source depends on people remembering which ideas or texts came from themselves and which were created with AI. We investigate how accurately people remember the source of content when using AI. In a pre-registered experiment, 184 participants generated and elaborated on ideas both unaided and with an LLM-based chatbot. One week later, they were asked to identify the source (noAI vs withAI) of these ideas and texts. Our findings reveal a significant gap in memory: After AI use, the odds of correct attribution dropped, with the steepest decline in mixed human-AI workflows, where either the idea or elaboration was created with AI. We validated our results using a computational model of source memory. Discussing broader implications, we highlight the importance of considering source confusion in the design and use of interactive text generation technologies.

Mobile emailing demands efficiency in diverse situations, which motivates the use of AI. However, generated text does not always reflect how people want to respond. This challenges users with AI involvement tradeoffs not yet considered in email UIs. We address this with a new UI concept called Content-Driven Local Response (CDLR), inspired by microtasking. This allows users to insert responses into the email by selecting sentences, which additionally serves to guide AI suggestions. The concept supports combining AI for local suggestions and message-level improvements. Our user study (N=126) compared CDLR with manual typing and full reply generation. We found that CDLR supports flexible workflows with varying degrees of AI involvement, while retaining the benefits of reduced typing and errors. This work contributes a new approach to integrating AI capabilities: By redesigning the UI for workflows with and without AI, we can empower users to dynamically adjust AI involvement.

Interacting with Large Language Models (LLMs) for text editing on mobile devices currently requires users to break out of their writing environment and switch to a conversational AI interface. In this paper, we propose to control the LLM via touch gestures performed directly on the text. We first chart a design space that covers fundamental touch input and text transformations. In this space, we then concretely explore two control mappings: spread-to-generate and pinch-to-shorten, with visual feedback loops. We evaluate this concept in a user study (N=14) that compares three feedback designs: no visualisation, text length indicator, and length + word indicator. The results demonstrate that touch-based control of LLMs is both feasible and user-friendly, with the length + word indicator proving most effective for managing text generation. This work lays the foundation for further research into gesture-based interaction with LLMs on touch devices.

Compelling writing is tailored to its audience. This is challenging, as writers may struggle to empathize with readers, get feedback in time, or gain access to the target group. We propose a concept that generates on-demand feedback, based on writer-defined AI personas of any target audience. We explore this concept with a prototype (using GPT-3.5) in two user studies (N=5 and N=11): Writers appreciated the concept and strategically used personas for getting different perspectives. The feedback was seen as helpful and inspired revisions of text and personas, although it was often verbose and unspecific. We discuss the impact of on-demand feedback, the limited representativity of contemporary AI systems, and further ideas for defining AI personas. This work contributes to the vision of supporting writers with AI by expanding the socio-technical perspective in AI tool design: To empower creators, we also need to keep in mind their relationship to an audience.

Throwing is a fundamental movement in many sports and games. Given this, accurate throwing in VR applications today is surprisingly difficult. In this paper we explore the nature of the difficulties of throwing in VR in more detail. We present the results of a user study comparing throwing in VR and in the physical world. In a short pre-study with 3 participants we determine an optimal number of throwing repetitions for the main study by exploring the learning curve and subjective fatigue of throwing in VR. In the main study, with 12 participants, we find that throwing precision and accuracy in VR are lower particularly in the distance and height dimensions. It also requires more effort and exhibits different kinematic patterns.