pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16272 · v1 · pith:ULZROGNKnew · submitted 2026-04-03 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

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

Hua Xuan Qin , Guangzhi Zhu , Mingming Fan , Pan Hui This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 10:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords AI refusalcreative writingfriction designreflectioncompliancehuman-AI interactioncreativity supportseamful AI
0
0 comments X

The pith

AI refusals can encourage creative writers to reflect on balanced tool use by creating deliberate friction.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Mainstream AI writing tools prioritize seamless compliance with every request, which risks reducing writers' thoughtful engagement with a mix of AI and non-AI methods. The paper proposes that intentional refusals by the AI could create friction that prompts reflection on when and how to use each resource. A qualitative study with 22 creative writers examined their reactions to simulated refusals during planning, translating, and reviewing stages. The findings indicate that the reflective value of these refusals hinges on how well they align with the writer's situational needs, cognitive beliefs, and expectations about the AI's role.

Core claim

The authors argue that intentional AI non-compliance through refusals could introduce reflection through friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions. The reflective potential of such refusals depends on heterogeneous preference alignment along situational dimensions such as convergent or divergent thinking phases, cognitive dimensions such as domain beliefs, and relational dimensions such as perceptions of AI roles.

What carries the argument

Intentional AI refusals as strategic friction to foster reflection on AI and non-AI resource use across writing stages.

Load-bearing premise

That the observed reactions from 22 creative writers to simulated refusals accurately reflect real-world responses and that such refusals provide meaningfully stronger friction for reflection than alternative design interventions.

What would settle it

A deployment study in which writers using actual AI with refusals show no increase in pausing to consider alternatives or in mixing AI with non-AI methods compared to users of fully compliant AI would weaken the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16272 by Guangzhi Zhu, Hua Xuan Qin, Mingming Fan, Pan Hui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: To address creative writers’ concerns about AI reliance, we study AI refusals of service (e.g., “I’m sorry, but I can’t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: User study participant request and AI responses for studied tones and initiation styles (Q&A question at bottom; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Participant session screenshots showing the chatbot interface built for our study. The interface is powered by GPT-4o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram showing our main user study procedure (Section 4.1) with participant AI request examples. Responses for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diagram presenting refusal acceptance (reflection willingness) as a multi-dimensional continuous variable. Refusal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Mainstream creativity support design prioritizes compliant AI for seamless writing interactions, but concerns over inappropriate AI reliance highlight the need for designs fostering reflection on balanced AI and non-AI resource use. Theoretically, intentional AI non-compliance, refusals (saying ``no'' to requests), could introduce such reflection through friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions. Practically, refusal content/language characteristics lead to nuanced reactions. However, little research empirically focuses on nuances beyond mandatory ethical/technical constraints, on turning refusals into strategic friction for `innocuous' requests. We address this through a qualitative study with 22 creative writers, exploring reactions to refusals to common requests across writing stages (planning, translating, reviewing). Findings suggest that reflective potential depends on heterogeneous preference alignment along situational (e.g., convergent/divergent thinking phases), cognitive (e.g., domain beliefs), and relational (e.g., AI roles) dimensions. We discuss implications for creativity support, broader issues (e.g., AI addiction), and frictional/seamful AI design (e.g., integrating different compliance levels).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a qualitative study with 22 creative writers examining their reactions to simulated AI refusals for common requests across writing stages (planning, translating, reviewing). It claims that intentional AI non-compliance via refusals can introduce beneficial friction to prompt reflection on balanced AI and non-AI resource use, with reflective potential varying according to heterogeneous preference alignment along situational (e.g., convergent/divergent phases), cognitive (e.g., domain beliefs), and relational (e.g., AI role expectations) dimensions. The work discusses implications for creativity support tools, frictional/seamful design, and broader issues such as AI over-reliance.

Significance. If the core findings on nuanced reactions hold, the paper contributes to HCI and creativity support research by empirically exploring refusals as a design strategy beyond mandatory ethical constraints. It provides concrete examples of how refusal characteristics elicit varied responses and ties these to dimensions of user preference, offering a foundation for designs that deliberately introduce friction rather than seamless compliance. This aligns with growing interest in seamful and reflective AI systems and could inform interventions addressing over-reliance in creative domains.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] Abstract and Discussion section: The claim that refusals can introduce 'friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions' is not supported by direct evidence. The study presents reactions to hypothetical refusal scenarios but includes no comparative arm (e.g., reflective prompts, delays, or justification requirements) and no behavioral measures of reflection or shifts to non-AI resources, so relative strength and persistence cannot be established from the data.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: The description of the thematic analysis lacks detail on codebook development, saturation criteria, handling of researcher positionality, or steps taken to mitigate interpretive bias when analyzing reactions to simulated (rather than live) refusals; with only 22 participants this affects the load-bearing claim about heterogeneous preference alignment.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] Introduction: The term 'seamful AI design' is used without a brief definition or citation to foundational seamful computing literature, which would improve accessibility for readers outside the immediate subfield.
  2. [Findings] Findings: While participant quotes illustrate the three dimensions, additional examples or a table summarizing how specific refusal phrasings mapped to situational vs. relational reactions would make the heterogeneity claim more transparent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating where we will revise the manuscript to strengthen its clarity and rigor while preserving the integrity of the reported study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Discussion] Abstract and Discussion section: The claim that refusals can introduce 'friction stronger than other bypass-able solutions' is not supported by direct evidence. The study presents reactions to hypothetical refusal scenarios but includes no comparative arm (e.g., reflective prompts, delays, or justification requirements) and no behavioral measures of reflection or shifts to non-AI resources, so relative strength and persistence cannot be established from the data.

    Authors: We agree that the current study does not provide direct comparative evidence or behavioral measures to support claims of relative strength. The phrasing in the abstract and discussion was intended to reference theoretical motivations from the seamful design and friction literature rather than an empirical result from this dataset. We will revise both sections to remove the comparative assertion, instead framing the potential for stronger reflective friction as a hypothesis for future work and focusing the contribution on the observed nuanced reactions and alignment dimensions from the qualitative data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The description of the thematic analysis lacks detail on codebook development, saturation criteria, handling of researcher positionality, or steps taken to mitigate interpretive bias when analyzing reactions to simulated (rather than live) refusals; with only 22 participants this affects the load-bearing claim about heterogeneous preference alignment.

    Authors: We accept that the methods section would benefit from expanded transparency. In the revised manuscript we will add specific details on the reflexive thematic analysis process, including iterative codebook development through independent open coding by two team members followed by consensus discussions, the point at which thematic saturation was assessed (no new themes after the 18th participant), explicit reflexive statements on researcher positionality given the team’s HCI and creative writing expertise, and bias-mitigation steps such as maintaining an audit trail and conducting peer debriefing. We will also expand the limitations discussion to address the use of simulated scenarios and the sample size of 22, noting that the heterogeneous alignment findings are presented as patterns within this exploratory qualitative sample rather than broadly generalizable results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: qualitative empirical study with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative HCI study interviewing 22 creative writers about reactions to simulated refusal scenarios across writing stages. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, predictions derived from inputs, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce claims to tautologies by construction. The central theoretical suggestion (refusals as stronger friction) is presented as motivation and explored via thematic analysis of participant responses; findings are explicitly framed as suggestive and heterogeneous rather than proven by the study's own logic. This is self-contained empirical work without the circular patterns enumerated in the analysis criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard HCI assumptions about the value of qualitative user studies for revealing design insights and the premise that friction from refusals promotes beneficial reflection.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Qualitative interviews with a small sample can surface generalizable patterns in user reactions to AI behaviors.
    Invoked implicitly when generalizing from 22 writers to broader implications for creativity support design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5721 in / 1159 out tokens · 35955 ms · 2026-05-21T10:17:28.785061+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 107 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    1926.Art of Rhetoric (revised edition / revised by gisela striker

    Aristotle. 1926.Art of Rhetoric (revised edition / revised by gisela striker. ed.). Harvard University Press

    work page 1926

  2. [2]

    Grigorenko

    Baptiste Barbot, Mei Tan, Judi Randi, Gabrielle Santa-Donato, and Elena L. Grigorenko. 2012. Essential skills for creative writing: Integrating multiple domain-specific perspectives.Thinking Skills and Creativity7, 3 (2012), 209–223. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.006 2012

  3. [3]

    Advait Bhat, Saaket Agashe, Parth Oberoi, Niharika Mohile, Ravi Jangir, and Anirudha Joshi. 2023. Interacting with Next-Phrase Suggestions: How Sugges- tion Systems Aid and Influence the Cognitive Processes of Writing. InProceed- ings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(Sydney, NSW, Australia)(IUI ’23). Association for Comp...

    work page doi:10.1145/3581641.3584060 2023

  4. [4]

    Andrea Blasco and Vicky Charisi. 2024. AI Chatbots in K-12 Education: An Experimental Study of Socratic vs. Non-Socratic Approaches and the Role of Step-by-Step Reasoning.SSRN(2024), 56. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5040921

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5040921 2024

  5. [5]

    Jessica Y Bo, Sophia Wan, and Ashton Anderson. 2025. To Rely or Not to Rely? Evaluating Interventions for Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 905, 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714097

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714097 2025

  6. [6]

    Smith, Yejin Choi, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi

    Faeze Brahman, Sachin Kumar, Vidhisha Balachandran, Pradeep Dasigi, Valentina Pyatkin, Abhilasha Ravichander, Sarah Wiegreffe, Nouha Dziri, Khy- athi Chandu, Jack Hessel, Yulia Tsvetkov, Noah A. Smith, Yejin Choi, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi. 2025. The art of saying no: contextual noncompliance in language models. InProceedings of the 38th International Con...

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 188 (April 2021), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3449287

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1145/3449287 2021

  8. [8]

    Carter, and Juan-Pablo Bermúdez

    Stefan Buijsman, Sarah E. Carter, and Juan-Pablo Bermúdez. 2025. Autonomy by Design: Preserving Human Autonomy in AI Decision-Support.Philos. Technol 33, 97 (2025). doi:10.1007/s13347-025-00932-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s13347-025-00932-2 2025

  9. [9]

    Maarten Buyl, Alexander Rogiers, Sander Noels, Guillaume Bied, Iris Dominguez- Catena, Edith Heiter, Iman Johary, Alexandru-Cristian Mara, Raphaël Romero, Jefrey Lijffijt, and Tijl De Bie. 2026. Large language models reflect the ideology of their creators.npj Artificial Intelligence2, 1 (07 Jan 2026), 7. doi:10.1038/s44387- 025-00048-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s44387- 2026

  10. [10]

    D., Freed, J

    Alice Cai, Ian Arawjo, and Elena L. Glassman. 2024. Antagonistic AI. (2024). arXiv:2402.07350 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.07350

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.07350 2024

  11. [11]

    Dashiel Carrera, Zixin Zhao, Ashish Ajin Thomas, and Daniel Wigdor. 2025. Nabokov’s Cards: An AI Assisted Prewriting System to Support Bottom-Up Cre- ative Writing. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 546–559. doi:10.1145/3698061.3726916

    work page doi:10.1145/3698061.3726916 2025

  12. [12]

    Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, Faeze Brahman, and Smaranda Mure- san. 2024. Creativity Support in the Age of Large Language Models: An Empirical Study Involving Professional Writers. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition(Chicago, IL, USA)(C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 132–155. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3635636.3656201 2024

  13. [13]

    Positive Friction

    Zeya Chen and Ruth Schmidt. 2024. Exploring a Behavioral Model of “Positive Friction” in Human-AI Interaction. InDesign, User Experience, and Usability: 13th International Conference, DUXU 2024, Held as Part of the 26th HCI International Conference, HCII 2024, Washington, DC, USA, June 29–July 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part II(Washington DC, USA). Springer-Ve...

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Jaeryung Chung, Seon Gyeom Kim, and Tak Yeon Lee. 2025. WrightHere: Supporting Children’s Creative Writing with AI-Infused Interactive 3D Environ- ment. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’25). Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, Article 606, 7 pages. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3719932 2025

  15. [15]

    John Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee, Eytan Adar, and Minsuk Chang. 2022. TaleBrush: Sketching Stories with Generative Pretrained Language Models. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(, New Orleans, LA, USA,)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 209, 19 ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501819 2022

  16. [16]

    John Joon Young Chung and Max Kreminski. 2024. Patchview: LLM-powered Worldbuilding with Generative Dust and Magnet Visualization. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(UIST ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 77, 19 pages. doi:10.1145/3654777.3676352

    work page doi:10.1145/3654777.3676352 2024

  17. [17]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis.The Journal of Positive Psychology12, 3 (2017), 297–298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

    work page doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 2017

  18. [18]

    Alexandra Coman and David W. Aha. 2018. AI Rebel Agents.AI Magazine39, 3 (Sep. 2018), 16–26. doi:10.1609/aimag.v39i3.2762

    work page doi:10.1609/aimag.v39i3.2762 2018

  19. [19]

    Aline Duelen, Iris Jennes, and Wendy Van den Broeck. 2024. Socratic AI Against Disinformation: Improving Critical Thinking to Recognize Disinformation Using Socratic AI. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences(Stockholm, Sweden)(IMX ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 375–381. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3639701.3663640 2024

  20. [20]

    Patrick Ehrenbrink and Sabine Prezenski. 2017. Causes of Psychological Re- actance in Human-Computer Interaction: A Literature Review and Survey. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics(Umeå, Sweden) (ECCE ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137–144. doi:10.1145/3121283.3121304

    work page doi:10.1145/3121283.3121304 2017

  21. [21]

    Vera Liao, Samir Passi, Mark O

    Upol Ehsan, Q. Vera Liao, Samir Passi, Mark O. Riedl, and III Daumé, Hal

    work page

  22. [22]

    ACM Hum.-Comput

    Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 119 (April 2024), 29 pages. doi:10.1145/3637396

    work page doi:10.1145/3637396 2024

  23. [23]

    Hoda Fakour and Moslem Imani. 2025. Socratic wisdom in the age of AI: a comparative study of ChatGPT and human tutors in enhancing critical thinking skills.Frontiers in EducationVolume 10 - 2025 (2025). doi:10.3389/feduc.2025. 1528603

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2025 2025

  24. [24]

    Xiaoxuan Fang, Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Jac Ka Lok Leung, and Samuel Kai Wah Chu. 2023. A systematic review of artificial intelligence technologies used for story writing.Education and Information Technologies28 (2023), 14361–14397. doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11741-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11741-5 2023

  25. [25]

    Lucile Favero, Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz, Tanja Käser, and Nuria Oliver. 2025. Enhancing Critical Thinking in Education by Means of a Socratic Chatbo. In AI in Education and Educational Research, Francisco Bellas and Oscar Fontenla- Romero (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 17–32. doi:10.1007/978-3- 031-93409-4_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2025

  26. [26]

    Figma. 2024. The Online Collaborative Whiteboard for Teams. https://www. figma.com/figjam/

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Svitlana Fiialka, Zoia Kornieva, and Tamara Honcharuk. 2024. The use of ChatGPT in creative writing assistance.XLinguae17, 1 (Jan. 2024), 3–19. doi:10. 18355/xl.2024.17.01.01

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Linda Flower and John R. Hayes. 1981. A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication32, 4 (Dec. 1981), 365–387

    work page 1981

  29. [29]

    Johanna Sandbäck Forsell, Linda Nyholm, and Camilla Koskinen. 2021. A caring science study of creative writing and human becoming.Scand J Caring Sci35, 1 (2021), 156–162. doi:10.1111/scs.12830

    work page doi:10.1111/scs.12830 2021

  30. [30]

    Hui Geng and Han Wei. 2024. Exploring ChatGPT’s Capabilities in Creative Writing: Can GPT-4o Conduct Rhetorical Move Analysis in Narrative Short Stories?ASEAN Journal of Applied Linguistics3, 1 (Dec. 2024), 44–59

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Tao Long, and Lydia B. Chilton. 2023. Social Dynamics of AI Support in Creative Writing. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 245, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3544548.3580782

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Julian Givi and Colleen P Kirk. 2024. Saying no: The negative ramifications from invitation declines are less severe than we think.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology126, 6 (2024), 1103–1115. doi:10.1037/pspi0000443

    work page doi:10.1037/pspi0000443 2024

  33. [33]

    Paolo Grigis and Antonella De Angeli. 2024. Playwriting with Large Language Models: Perceived Features, Interaction Strategies and Outcomes. InProceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces(Arenzano, Genoa, Italy)(A VI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 38, 9 pages. doi:10.1145/3656650.3656688

    work page doi:10.1145/3656650.3656688 2024

  34. [34]

    Alicia Guo, Shreya Sathyanarayanan, Leijie Wang, Jeffrey Heer, and Amy X. Zhang. 2025. From Pen to Prompt: How Creative Writers Integrate AI into their Writing Practice. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 527–545. doi:10.1145/3698061.3726910

    work page doi:10.1145/3698061.3726910 2025

  35. [35]

    Stephan Hammer, Birgit Lugrin, Sergey Bogomolov, Kathrin Janowski, and Elisabeth André. 2016. Investigating Politeness Strategies and Their Persua- siveness for a Robotic Elderly Assistant. InPersuasive Technology, Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Boris De Ruyter, Verena Fuchsberger, Martin Murer, and Manfred Tscheligi (Eds.). Springer International Publishing...

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    John R Hayes. 1996. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. InThe science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, C Michael Levy and Sarah Ransdell (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Qin et al. Associates, Inc, 1–27

    work page 1996

  37. [37]

    Hayes and Virginia W

    John R. Hayes and Virginia W. Berninger. 2014. Cognitive Pro- cesses in Writing: A Framework. InWriting Development in Chil- dren with Hearing Loss, Dyslexia, or Oral Language Problems: Im- plications for Assessment and Instruction. Oxford University Press. arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/book/0/chapter/196492989/chapter-ag- pdf/44610478/book27121𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1...

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof: 2014

  38. [38]

    Philip Held, Sarah A Pridgen, Yaozhong Chen, Zuhaib Akhtar, Darpan Amin, and Sean Pohorence. 2024. A Novel Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Generative AI Tool (Socrates 2.0) to Facilitate Socratic Dialogue: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.JMIR Res Protoc10, 13 (2024). doi:10.2196/58195

    work page doi:10.2196/58195 2024

  39. [39]

    Aaron Hertzmann. 2018. Can Computers Create Art?Arts7, 2 (2018). doi:10. 3390/arts7020018

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Hesam Hosseinpour. 2020. Disobedience of AI: Threat or promise.Információs Társadalom20, 4 (2020), 48–56. doi:10.22503/inftars.XX.2020.4.4

    work page doi:10.22503/inftars.xx.2020.4.4 2020

  41. [41]

    Howe, and Jussi Holopainen

    Yuxuan Huang, James Shea, Daniel C. Howe, and Jussi Holopainen. 2025. Lyric Poetry in the Face of Posthumanism: An Analysis of Generative AI-Assisted Poetry Writing. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 762–773. doi:10.1145/3698061.3726919

    work page doi:10.1145/3698061.3726919 2025

  42. [42]

    Cédric Hubert, Nathalie Bonnardel, and Aline Frey. 2025. Effects of daily cre- ative writing practice at school on the cognitive development of children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds.Thinking Skills and Creativity58 (2025), 101881. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101881

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101881 2025

  43. [43]

    Sebastian Hueber, Eunae Jang, and Jan Borchers. 2023. Attentive Notifications: Minimizing Distractions of Mobile Notifications through Gaze Tracking. InPro- ceedings of the 25th International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Inter- action(Athens, Greece)(MobileHCI ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 7 page...

    work page doi:10.1145/3565066.3608695 2023

  44. [44]

    James Hutson. 2025. Human-AI Collaboration in Writing: A Multidimensional Framework for Creative and Intellectual Authorship.International Journal of Changes in Education0 (2025), 1–10. doi:10.47852/bonviewIJCE52024908

    work page doi:10.47852/bonviewijce52024908 2025

  45. [45]

    Vera Liao, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Olteanu, and Adam Trischler

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Q. Vera Liao, Su Lin Blodgett, Alexandra Olteanu, and Adam Trischler. 2025. ’It was 80% me, 20% AI’: Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW122 (May 2025), 41 pages. doi:10.1145/3711020

    work page doi:10.1145/3711020 2025

  46. [46]

    Beautiful Seams

    Sarah Inman and David Ribes. 2019. "Beautiful Seams": Strategic Revelations and Concealments. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300508

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300508 2019

  47. [47]

    Anna-Kaisa Kaila, André Holzapfel, and Petra Jääskeläinen. 2024. Gardening frictions in creative AI: Emerging art practices and their design implications. In 15th International Conference on Computational Creativity

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Shivani Kapania, William Agnew, Motahhare Eslami, Hoda Heidari, and Sarah E Fox. 2025. Simulacrum of Stories: Examining Large Language Models as Qualita- tive Research Participants. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 489, 17 pages. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713220 2025

  49. [49]

    Hayeon Kim, Sungwoo Seo, and Sang Woo Lee. 2025. When generative AI messes up:How politeness and attribution shape user reactions to hallucinations. International Journal of Information Management85 (2025), 102958. doi:10.1016/ j.ijinfomgt.2025.102958

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Taewan Kim, Donghoon Shin, Young-Ho Kim, and Hwajung Hong. 2024. Di- aryMate: Understanding User Perceptions and Experience in Human-AI Col- laboration for Personal Journaling. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1046, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642693 2024

  51. [51]

    Harsh Kumar, Jonathan Vincentius, Ewan Jordan, and Ashton Anderson. 2025. Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on Divergent and Convergent Thinking. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/37065...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714198 2025

  52. [52]

    Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C

    Mina Lee, Katy Ilonka Gero, John Joon Young Chung, Simon Buckingham Shum, Vipul Raheja, Hua Shen, Subhashini Venugopalan, Thiemo Wambsganss, David Zhou, Emad A. Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C. Guo, Md Naimul Hoque, Yewon Kim, Simon Knight, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Antonette Shibani, Disha Shrivastava, Lila Shr...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 2024

  53. [53]

    Soohwan Lee, Seoyeong Hwang, Dajung Kim, and Kyungho Lee. 2025. Con- versational Agents as Catalysts for Critical Thinking: Challenging Social In- fluence in Group Decision-making. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’25). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Arti...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3719792 2025

  54. [54]

    Kasper Levin, Susanne Henningsson, Jon Toke Brestisson, Gry Ardal Printzlau, and Bent Rosenbaum. 2025. Recontextualizing Senses of Self, World and Other: A Qualitative Study of Creative Writing Workshops for People Suffering from Severe Mental Illness.J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. Ment. Health(2025). doi:10.1007/ s40737-025-00465-z

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Houjiang Liu, Yiheng Su, and Matthew Lease. 2025. Rhetorical XAI: Explaining AI’s Benefits as well as its Use via Rhetorical Design. (2025). arXiv:2505.09862 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.09862

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09862 2025

  56. [56]

    Sebastian Lubos, {Thi Ngoc Trang} Tran, {Seda Polat} Erdeniz, {Merfat El} Mansi, Alexander Felfernig, Manfred Wundara, and Gerhard Leitner. 2023. Concentrat- ing on the Impact: Consequence-based Explanations in Recommender Systems. CEUR Workshop Proceedings3534 (2023), 63–73

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Octavian-Mihai Machidon. 2025. Generative AI and childhood education: lessons from the smartphone generation.AI & Soc40 (2025), 4295–4297. doi:10.1007/ s00146-025-02196-y

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Federico Magni, Jiyoung Park, and Melody Manchi Chao. 2024. Humans as Creativity Gatekeepers: Are We Biased Against AI Creativity?J Bus Psychol39 (2024), 643–656. doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09910-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10869-023-09910-x 2024

  59. [59]

    Tim Miller. 2019. Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences.Artificial Intelligence267 (2019), 1–38. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 2019

  60. [60]

    Reuth Mirsky. 2025. Artificial intelligent disobedience: Rethinking the agency of our artificial teammates.AI Magazine46, 2 (2025), e70011. arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aaai.70011 doi:10.1002/ aaai.70011

    work page doi:10.1002/aaai.70011 2025

  61. [61]

    Mateus de Souza Monteiro, Vinícius Carvalho Pereira, and Luciana Cardoso de Castro Salgado. 2024. Investigating politeness strategies in chatbots through the lens of Conversation Analysis. InProceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Maceió, Brazil)(IHC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Ar...

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Philipp Müller, Sander Staal, Mihai Bâce, and Andreas Bulling. 2022. Designing for Noticeability: Understanding the Impact of Visual Importance on Desktop Notifications. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 472, 13 ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501954 2022

  63. [63]

    Murad, Mustafa Ibrahim Khaleel, and Shakor Mohammed Y

    Ibrahim A. Murad, Mustafa Ibrahim Khaleel, and Shakor Mohammed Y. 2024. Unveiling GPT-4o: Enhanced Multimodal Capabilities and Comparative Insights with ChatGPT-4.International Journal of Electronics and Communications Sys- tems4, 2 (Dec. 2024), 127–136. doi:10.24042/ijecs.v4i2.25079

    work page doi:10.24042/ijecs.v4i2.25079 2024

  64. [64]

    Chiara Natali. 2024. Frictional AI. Designing Desirable Inefficiencies in Decision Support Systems for Knowledge Work. InProceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: The International Venue on Practice-centered Computing on the Design of Cooperation Technologies – Doctoral Colloquium Contributions. European Society f...

    work page doi:10.48340/ecscw2024_dc07 2024

  65. [65]

    David Noever and Grant Rosario. 2025. Beyond No: Quantifying AI Over-Refusal and Emotional Attachment Boundaries. (2025). arXiv:2502.14975 doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2502.14975

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Ayano Okoso, Mingzhe Yang, and Yukino Baba. 2025. Do Expressions Change Decisions? Exploring the Impact of AI’s Explanation Tone on Decision-Making. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 824, 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713744

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713744 2025

  67. [67]

    OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arXiv:2303.08774 [cs.CL]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    2024.Hello GPT-4o

    OpenAI. 2024.Hello GPT-4o. Retrieved August 21, 2024 from https://openai. com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    2024.Usage policies

    OpenAI. 2024.Usage policies. Retrieved January 26, 2025 from https://openai. com/policies/usage-policies

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Stefan Pasch. 2025. LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arena. (2025). arXiv:2501.03266 doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2501.03266

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Hua Xuan Qin, Shan Jin, Ze Gao, Mingming Fan, and Pan Hui. 2024. Char- acterMeet: Supporting Creative Writers’ Entire Story Character Construction Processes Through Conversation with LLM-Powered Chatbot Avatars. InPro- ceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machiner...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642105 2024

  72. [72]

    Hua Xuan Qin, Guangzhi Zhu, Mingming Fan, and Pan Hui. 2025. Toward Personalizable AI Node Graph Creative Writing Support: Insights on Prefer- ences for Generative AI Features and Information Presentation Across Story Writing Processes. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Mach...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713569 2025

  73. [73]

    Mohi Reza, Nathan M Laundry, Ilya Musabirov, Peter Dushniku, Zhi Yuan “Michael” Yu, Kashish Mittal, Tovi Grossman, Michael Liut, Anastasia Kuzminykh, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2024. ABScribe: Rapid Exploration & Organization of Multiple Writing Variations in Human-AI Co-Writing Tasks using Large Language Models. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Hu- m...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3641899 2024

  74. [74]

    Mohi Reza, Jeb Thomas-Mitchell, Peter Dushniku, Nathan Laundry, Joseph Jay Williams, and Anastasia Kuzminykh. 2025. Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process. (2025). arXiv:2504.12488 doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.12488

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12488 2025

  75. [75]

    Samuel Rhys Cox, Helena Bøjer Djernæs, and Niels van Berkel. 2025. Beyond Productivity: Rethinking the Impact of Creativity Support Tools. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 735–749. doi:10.1145/3698061. 3726924

    work page doi:10.1145/3698061 2025

  76. [76]

    Patrizia Ribino. 2023. The role of politeness in human–machine interactions: a systematic literature review and future perspectives.Artif Intell Rev56, Suppl 1 (2023), 445–482. doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10540-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10540-1 2023

  77. [77]

    Ana Rodrigues, Diogo Cabral, and Pedro Campos. 2025. Inside the Solution Diamond: The Role of CSTs Supporting Divergent and Convergent Thinking. InProceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 11 pages. doi:10.1145/3746175.3746194

    work page doi:10.1145/3746175.3746194 2025

  78. [78]

    2017.Research in the Wild

    Yvonne Rogers and Paul Marshall. 2017.Research in the Wild. Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02220-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02220-3 2017

  79. [79]

    Imed Samaali and Tahar Bayouli. 2019. Speech Act of Refusal on the Phone. Arab World English Journal10, 2 (2019), 165–180. doi:10.24093/awej/vol10no2.14

    work page doi:10.24093/awej/vol10no2.14 2019

  80. [80]

    Advait Sarkar. 2024. AI Should Challenge, Not Obey.Commun. ACM67, 10 (Sept. 2024), 18–21. doi:10.1145/3649404

    work page doi:10.1145/3649404 2024

Showing first 80 references.