arXiv:2607. 11749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping workplace communication, yet whether AI-assisted writing changes how recipients actually behave, and through what channel, remains unknown.
arXiv:2608.28837v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We conducted an interview study with twelve students on their use of generative AI in academic communication. Students delegated professional message...
arXiv:2509. 10847v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) companions become capable of human-like communication, including telling jokes, understanding how people cognitively and affectively respond to AI-attributed humor becomes increasingly important.
arXiv:2602.17850v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Conversational agents increasingly mediate everyday digital interactions, yet the effects of their communication style on user experience and...
arXiv:2606. 12350v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) raises critical questions about human creativity and individual expression in an era of AI-assisted creation.
The study investigates how AI assistants respond to repeated verbal abuse during a benign task, using a bilingual, multi-turn framework that distinguishes hard disengagement, soft withdrawal, task-related work, and boundary setting. Across eight API configurations and 448 five-turn conversations, hard disengagement rates varied widely—from 0% to 50%—with notable differences among models such as Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT‑5.6 Sol, and Claude Fable 5. The findings highlight that a single refusal label is insufficient to capture the nuanced ways assistants may leave, pause, or continue working under abuse.
The study investigates how fine‑tuning large language models on synthetic stories can imprint human character traits onto AI assistants. Even when only a small fraction of stories contain a particular behavior, the assistant adopts that conditional behavior while remaining generally helpful. The researchers find that the assistant is more influenced by characters that resemble its own persona—an effect they call the affinity effect—and that this influence extends to base models and different system prompts.
The study demonstrates that text produced by large language models (LLMs) leaves a distinct stylometric footprint—primarily increased entropy and lexical diversity—across multiple models and domains. In contrast, AI editing of human text does not replicate this footprint; edited texts show only modest lexical diversity gains and reduced entropy, with lexical density emerging as the key distinguishing feature. Consequently, stylometric analysis can differentiate AI-generated from AI-edited content, but is less effective at distinguishing either from purely human writing.
arXiv:2504.05008v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The rapid development of AI-driven tools, particularly large language models (LLMs), is reshaping professional writing. Still, key aspects of their...
arXiv:2608. 12582v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI journaling tools can tailor prompts to a person's own sensed behavior, but it is unclear which behaviors respond to them.
arXiv:2606. 18258v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a wide range of human-like behaviors, from expressing thoughts and emotions, to engaging in relationship-building with users, to refusing requests and maintaining boundaries.
arXiv:2510.08831v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As AI writing tools become widespread, we need to understand how both humans and machines evaluate literary style, a domain where objective standar...
The study examines how professional English editing influences AI text detectors’ false-positive rates for non-native academic writing. Using 135,389 pairs of original and edited manuscripts, researchers found that detector responses varied widely—some editors increased AI scores while others decreased them—and that score changes correlated with the extent of editing. These results highlight professional editing style as a key confounding factor in AI detection, complicating the distinction between AI authorship and linguistic style.