arXiv subjects

Marianne Aubin Le Quéré

Publications and source records attributed to Marianne Aubin Le Quéré.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Reactive Writers: How Co-Writing with AI Changes How We Engage with Ideas

Emerging experimental evidence shows that writing with AI assistance can change both the views people express in writing and the opinions they hold afterwards. Yet, we lack substantive understanding of procedural and behavioral changes in co-writing with AI that underlie the observed opinion-shaping power of AI writing tools. We conducted a mixed-methods study, combining retrospective interviews with 19 participants about their AI co-writing experience with a quantitative analysis tracing engagement with ideas and opinions 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 in the writing process, 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 full control of their writing, as they -- in principle -- could always edit the final text. We term this shift \textit{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.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Bonsai: Intentional and Personalized Social Media Feeds

Social media feeds use predictive models to maximize engagement, often misaligning how people consume content with how they wish to. We introduce Bonsai, a system that enables people to build personalized and intentional feeds. Bonsai implements a platform-agnostic framework comprising Planning, Sourcing, Curating, and Ranking modules. This framework allows users to express their intent in natural language and exert fine-grained control over a procedurally transparent feed creation process. We evaluated the system with 15 Bluesky users in a two-phase, multi-week study. We find that participants successfully used our system to discover new content, filter out irrelevant or toxic posts, and disentangle engagement from intent, but curating intentional feeds required more effort than they are used to. Simultaneously, users sought system transparency mechanisms to effectively use (and trust) intentional, personalized feeds. Overall, our work highlights intentional feedbuilding as a viable path beyond engagement-based optimization.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Examining the Prevalence and Dynamics of AI-Generated Media in Art Subreddits

Broadly accessible generative AI models like Dall-E have made it possible for anyone to create compelling visual art. In online communities, the introduction of AI-generated content (AIGC) may impact social dynamics, for example causing changes in who is posting content, or shifting the norms or the discussions around the posted content if posts are suspected of being generated by AI. We take steps towards examining the potential impact of AIGC on art-related communities on Reddit. We distinguish between communities that disallow AI content and those without such a direct policy. We look at image-based posts in these communities where the author transparently shares that the image was created by AI, and at comments in these communities that suspect or accuse authors of using generative AI. We find that AI posts (and accusations) have played a surprisingly small part in these communities through the end of 2023, accounting for fewer than 0.5% of the image-based posts. However, even as the absolute number of author-labeled AI posts dwindles over time, accusations of AI use remain more persistent. We show that AI content is more readily used by newcomers and may help increase participation if it aligns with community rules. However, the tone of comments suspecting AI use by others has become more negative over time, especially in communities that do not have explicit rules about AI. Overall, the results show the changing norms and interactions around AIGC in online communities designated for creativity.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Large Language Models in Qualitative Research: Uses, Tensions, and Intentions

Qualitative researchers use tools to collect, sort, and analyze their data. Should qualitative researchers use large language models (LLMs) as part of their practice? LLMs could augment qualitative research, but it is unclear if their use is appropriate, ethical, or aligned with qualitative researchers' goals and values. We interviewed twenty qualitative researchers to investigate these tensions. Many participants see LLMs as promising interlocutors with attractive use cases across the stages of research, but wrestle with their performance and appropriateness. Participants surface concerns regarding the use of LLMs while protecting participant interests, and call attention to an urgent lack of norms and tooling to guide the ethical use of LLMs in research. We document the rapid and broad adoption of LLMs across surfaces, which can interfere with intentional use vital to qualitative research. We use the tensions surfaced by our participants to outline recommendations for researchers considering using LLMs in qualitative research and design principles for LLM-assisted qualitative research tools.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

"Ownership, Not Just Happy Talk": Co-Designing a Participatory Large Language Model for Journalism

Journalism has emerged as an essential domain for understanding the uses, limitations, and impacts of large language models (LLMs) in the workplace. News organizations face divergent financial incentives: LLMs already permeate newswork processes within financially constrained organizations, even as ongoing legal challenges assert that AI companies violate their copyright. At stake are key questions about what LLMs are created to do, and by whom: How might a journalist-led LLM work, and what can participatory design illuminate about the present-day challenges about adapting ``one-size-fits-all'' foundation models to a given context of use? In this paper, we undertake a co-design exploration to understand how a participatory approach to LLMs might address opportunities and challenges around AI in journalism. Our 20 interviews with reporters, data journalists, editors, labor organizers, product leads, and executives highlight macro, meso, and micro tensions that designing for this opportunity space must address. From these desiderata, we describe the result of our co-design work: organizational structures and functionality for a journalist-controlled LLM. In closing, we discuss the limitations of commercial foundation models for workplace use, and the methodological implications of applying participatory methods to LLM co-design.

cs.HC↗