Emerging evidence shows that writing with AI assistance can change both the views people express and the opinions they hold. Yet, we lack a substantive understanding of behavioral and process-level changes in co-writing with AI that underlie the opinion-shaping power of these tools. We conducted a mixed-methods study, combining retrospective interviews with 19 participants about their co-writing experience with quantitative analysis tracing idea engagement 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, 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 control, 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.

If large language models like GPT-3 preferably produce a particular point of view, they may influence people’s opinions on an unknown scale. This study investigates whether a language-model-powered writing assistant that generates some opinions more often than others impacts what users write – and what they think. In an online experiment, we asked participants (N=1,506) to write a post discussing whether social media is good for society. Treatment group participants used a language-model-powered writing assistant configured to argue that social media is good or bad for society. Participants then completed a social media attitude survey, and independent judges (N=500) evaluated the opinions expressed in their writing. Using the opinionated language model affected the opinions expressed in participants’ writing and shifted their opinions in the subsequent attitude survey. We discuss the wider implications of our results and argue that the opinions built into AI language technologies need to be monitored and engineered more carefully.

Writing with next-phrase suggestions powered by large language models is becoming more pervasive by the day. However, research to understand writers’ interaction and decision-making processes while engaging with such systems is still emerging. We conducted a qualitative study to shed light on writers’ cognitive processes while writing with next-phrase suggestion systems. To do so, we recruited 14 amateur writers to write two movie reviews each, one without suggestions and one with suggestions. Additionally, we also positively and negatively biased the suggestion system to get a diverse range of instances where writers’ opinions and the bias in the language model align or misalign to varying degrees. We found that writers interact with next-phrase suggestions in various complex ways: Writers abstracted and extracted multiple parts of the suggestions and incorporated them within their writing, even when they disagreed with the suggestion as a whole; along with evaluating the suggestions on various criteria. The suggestion system also had various effects on the writing process, such as altering the writer’s usual writing plans, leading to higher levels of distraction etc. Based on our qualitative analysis using the cognitive process model of writing by Hayes [35] as a lens, we propose a theoretical model of ’writer-suggestion interaction’ for writing with GPT-2 (and causal language models in general) for a movie review writing task, followed by directions for future research and design.

Children with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disorders tend to have difficulty in language and communication, especially in abstract language concepts like prepositions. Existing clinically used methods of conducting therapy are difficult to conduct at home. In this paper, we try to show the design and process to translate an existing therapy technique into a playful activity for children with ASD to practice prepositions. The design is generated through a deductive process and was based in theory and expert evaluation. The aim is to increase overall compliance by making the therapy activity more playful and fun.