AI写作助手能否促进创意生成，关键在人机互动方式。
How Problematic Writer-AI Interactions (Rather than Problematic AI) Hinder Writers' Idea Generation
- 通过案例研究发现，互动方式比AI类型更影响创意生成。
- 主动探索者无论用何种AI都能产生新想法，被动复制者则几乎无收获。
- 适合教育者和AI设计者关注，尤其重视人机协作过程的设计。
写作能深化作者对主题的理解，这一认知效益被称为建构性学习，对学生跨学科学习至关重要。然而，当学生使用生成式AI写作助手时，这种效益是否依然存在？先前研究显示，答案取决于AI类型：自动补全系统往往阻碍创意，而提出苏格拉底式问题的助手则有助于创意发展。本文从新视角切入，通过案例研究发现，生成式AI对学生产生创意的影响不仅取决于AI本身，还取决于学生个体及其互动方式。主动探索想法的学生，无论使用自动补全还是苏格拉底式助手，均能获得新思路；而长期机械性复制修改的学生，即便使用苏格拉底式助手，也几乎未产生新想法。这表明，未来AI写作助手的设计应不仅聚焦于提升AI的提问能力，更应重视激发更具启发性的用户-人工智能交互模式。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。