# How Problematic Writer-AI Interactions (Rather than Problematic AI) Hinder Writers' Idea Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11915 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11915/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 36 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.06796/) (2022)
- [Learning to Ask: Neural Question Generation for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.00106/) (2017)
- [Art or Artifice? Large Language Models and the False Promise of Creativity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.14556/) (2023)
- [Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01536/) (2024)
- [The Value, Benefits, and Concerns of Generative AI-Powered Assistance in Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.12004/) (2024)
- [Enhancing Critical Thinking in Education by means of a Socratic Chatbot](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.05511/) (2024)
- [ScholaWrite: A Dataset of End-to-End Scholarly Writing Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.02904/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Reactive Writers: How Co-Writing with AI Changes How We Engage with Ideas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.10374/) (2026)
- [Beyond Compliance: How AI Could Help Creative Writers by Refusing Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.16272/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Writing about a subject enriches writers' understanding of that subject. This cognitive benefit of writing -- known as constructive learning -- is essential to how students learn in various disciplines. However, does this benefit persist when students write with generative AI writing assistants? Prior research suggests the answer varies based on the type of AI, e.g., auto-complete systems tend to hinder ideation, while assistants that pose Socratic questions facilitate it. This paper adds an additional perspective. Through a case study, we demonstrate that the impact of genAI on students' idea development depends not only on the AI but also on the students and, crucially, their interactions in between. Students who proactively explored ideas gained new ideas from writing, regardless of whether they used auto-complete or Socratic AI assistants. Those who engaged in prolonged, mindless copyediting developed few ideas even with a Socratic AI. These findings suggest opportunities in designing AI writing assistants, not merely by creating more thought-provoking AI, but also by fostering more thought-provoking writer-AI interactions.