second brain
source
← 首页

external-source

Ownership in AI-Assisted Everyday Tasks

Ownership in AI-Assisted Everyday Tasks

Note: body below is original English text extracted from arXiv abs / HTML. Do not treat this file as a translation.

arXiv:2609.20658 · published 2026-09-17 · submitted 2026-09-17

Abstract

When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI's suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people's sense of authorship over their own lives.

Authors

Megan Wei, Melanie Subbiah, Audrey Lee, Annya Dahmani, Dave Edwards, Helen Edwards, Ellie Pavlick

Key claims (verbatim-leaning English extract)

Structure (section headings from HTML)

Body excerpts (original English)

Ownership in AI-Assisted Everyday Tasks Report GitHub Issue × Title: Content selection saved. Describe the issue below: Description: Submit without GitHub Submit in GitHub arXiv is now an independent nonprofit! Learn more × Back to arXiv Why HTML? Report Issue Back to Abstract Download PDF Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Survey Design and Methods 3 Results Process drives ownership. Homogeneous voice, personalization, and rejection. Enabling outputs beyond one’s own abilities. No ownership without comprehension. Disclosure. 4 Takeaways and Recommendations Focus on process. Personalization. Enabling the previously impossible. Promoting honest disclosure of AI use. References A Survey A.1 Demographic information A.2 AI usage A.3 Task reflections (two blocks, randomized order) A.4 Common tasks with AI A.5 Comparison and closing B Survey Participation C Demographics C.1 Personal Demographics C.2 AI Usage C.3 Paid AI Usage D Survey Results D.1 Interest and Ability in Performing Tasks without AI D.2 Pride and Disclosure D.3 Common Tasks and AI Memory Gap D.4 Anecdotes on Tasks License: CC BY 4.0 arXiv:2609.20658v1 [cs.AI] 17 Sep 2026 \workshoptitle AI and the Self Ownership in AI-Assisted Everyday Tasks Megan Wei Affiliation: Brown University Email: meganwei@brown.edu Melanie Subbiah Affiliation: Brown University Email: m.subbiah@brown.edu Audrey Lee Email: elliepavlick@brown.edu Affiliation: Carnegie Mellon University Annya Dahmani Email: ael2@andrew.cmu.edu Affiliation: University of California, Berkeley Dave Edwards Email: adahmani@berkeley.edu Affiliation: Artificiality Institute Helen Edwards Affiliation: Artificiality Institute Email: dave@artificialityinstitute.org Ellie Pavlick Affiliation: Brown University Email: helen@artificialityinstitute.org Abstract When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI’s suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people’s sense of authorship over their own lives. 1 Introduction Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming integrated into both our personal and work lives, primarily through Large Language Models (LLMs) used as chatbots or agents ( Hosseini and Seilani, 2025 ) . It is, therefore, imperative to consider the effect this integration will have not just on our work, but on our personal well-being ( Sharma et al., 2026 ; Yang et al., 2026 ; Luettgau et al., 2025 ) . The relevant research and media attention have largely focused on the most high-stakes areas of our well-being, involving self-harm, death, and crises of mental health ( Guo et al., 2024 ; Chung et al., 2026 ; Archiwaranguprok et al., 2025 ) . However, other important aspects of our well-being that may erode more slowly over time are no less consequential. One such area is our sense of purpose and fulfillment in our life and work, which hinges on some degree of pride or ownership in the decisions and actions we take ( McKnight and Kashdan, 2009 ; Kirk et al., 2015 ; Polimetla et al., 2026 ) . In this paper, informed by a qualitative survey, we narrow in on this issue, asking, How does using AI in everyday tasks affect our sense of ownership of our daily life decisions and work? Prior work has defined cognitive offloading ( Risko and Gilbert, 2016 ; Gerlich, 2025 ; Grinschgl et al., 2021 ; Guingrich et al., 2026 ; Yang et al., 2026 ) as delegating cognitive effort to another entity, such as an AI tool, and thus reducing the user’s effort and involvement in the process and output. Cognitive offloading affects comprehension and learning for the person doing the task, often with minimal gains in efficiency ( Kosmyna et al., 2025 ; Yu et al., 2026 ) . In our work, we focus on the feelings attached to this phenomenon, developing hypotheses for factors that contribute to people feeling ownership of everyday tasks they complete with AI assistance. We conduct an informal survey 1 1 1 Participants were recruited through our professional networks, spanning students at research universities and adults in the design and entrepreneurship community, who were generally heavy users of AI tools. We acknowledge this is a biased sample; we report these results as a necessary first step toward surfacing problems and insights in this space, which we encourage future work to validate through more structured research studies. View survey results here: aiownership.github.io comparing people’s patterns and feelings when using AI in a task over which they ultimately feel high ownership versus a task over which they feel low ownership. Comparing points along this spectrum is in line with Polimetla et al. (2026) ’s work on felt ownership in creative work and allows us to probe differences in the tasks themselves, in interaction patterns with the AI, and in personal reactions to the task and process. Our qualitative analysis of these responses reveals several themes driving ownership: 1) the importance of process over output , 2) a feeling of differentiating one’s personal voice , 3) achieving something beyond one’s own abilities , and 4) comprehension of the output . Additionally, we uncover that people’s willingness to disclose AI use to colleagues or peers is less connected to their actual sense of ownership or pride in their work and more contingent on the norms and stigmas in their communities . Figure 1: Responses when asked whether users are able to do the task without AI, across high and low ownership tasks. 2 Survey Design and Methods We design a survey (all questions shown in Appendix A ) with 1) demographics, 2) general AI usage, 3) two task reflections, 4) a checklist of common AI tasks, and 5) comparative questions. For the task reflections ( Polimetla et al., 2026 ) , participants described one high-ownership and one low-ownership task, shown in randomized order. They answered whether the task would have been done, and could have been done, without AI, alongside free-text reflections on identity, independent contribution, pride, and disclosure. Participants selected tasks done using AI in the past 30 days from a list adapted from Chatterji et al. (2025) . The comparative questions ( Why these tasks? What made the biggest difference in felt ownership? ) assessed differences across tasks ( Zindulka et al., 2026 ) . We recruited respondents via professional networks and social media (LinkedIn, Instagram), as well as university mailing lists and Slack channels, collecting responses from August 6-27, 2026. The sample is biased (Appendix C ), especially toward mid-to-late career highly educated white adults who heavily use AI and are able to pay out of pocket for it. In total, 117 people began the survey, with 52 complete responses and 64 responses containing at least one task reflection. 3 Results Process drives ownership. When asked what made the difference in ownership between their two tasks, respondents highlighted that ownership was about who led the process ( “ownership comes from owning the decisions made during the processing of the information. If there was no processing of information nor synthesis then it doesn’t feel I own it.” ). This finding is in line with Polimetla et al. (2026) ’s work on creative ownership which showed process , and particularly control over decisions , to be a differentiating factor in ownership. We also see ownership diminishes when the human simply approves the AI output ( “I reviewed, I looked, I was in the loop, but I wasn’t in charge.” ) ( Dhillon et al., 2024 ) . Some users are intentional about protecting their process to preserve ownership ( “I augment my own expertise and skills with AI, I don’t hand off the whole thing.” ). In collaborative settings, ownership on the shared product shifts based on observations of collaborators’ AI usage that may be misaligned with an individual’s process ( “Early on, I was more proud of the project… As the deadline approached, I saw my students use AI more and more extensively for filling in gaps.” ). Homogeneous voice, personalization, and rejection. For writing tasks, a prominent source of disownership was the voice ( Ippolito et al., 2022 ) : “it sounded nothing like me… AI emails sound very vanilla.” ; “I didn’t like how ‘artificial’ it sounded.” ; and “the sentence structure and big words used did not sound like any human personality” ( Chakrabarty et al., 2025 ) , which aligns with findings of homogenization and reduced diversity in AI-generated content ( Doshi and Hauser, 2024 ; Si et al., 2025 ; Anderson et al., 2024 ; Sourati et al., 2026 ) . Respondents who invested in personalization ( Wan and Kalman, 2026 ; Hwang et al., 2025 ; Shaikh et al., 2025 ) of models reported retaining ownership ( “consistent with my voice after much training of this project” ; “My model already has md file for content creation. This shows samples of my work, direct instructions about my tone, guardrails of what not to say or do” ). However, there is a ceiling to this personalization ( Wang et al., 2025 ) , where the outputs were “over aggregated and without some of my unique POV” . Interestingly, AI’s bad outputs sometimes helped people build ownership by giving them a point of contrast: “It helped me understand what I didn’t want so I could create what I wanted… I definitely felt more ownership… because AI failed so horribly.” ; “I don’t always know what I want… until I see where the AI-generated version misses… even an imperfect output can be useful because the process of disagreeing with it… becomes part of my own thinking.” This phenomenon has also been evidenced in Guo et al. (2025) , where writers perceived bad outputs as useful “anti-patterns”: seeing what they don’t want helps them understand what they do want. Encountering and rejecting bad AI outputs can help people define and own their work. Enabling outputs beyond one’s own abilities. Counterintuitively, respondents were less certain they could have done their high-ownership task without AI, where 42% answered “definitely yes” against 63% for low-ownership tasks (Figure 1 ). Some of the most-owned projects would have been impossible for their creators and unlocked new creative powers. For example, two respondents had longed to produce children’s books and graphic novels but could not illustrate their writing, with one commenting, “my inability to get [my vision] out of my head originally led me to stop writing children’s books.” AI helped them realize their envisioned illustrations with great positive effect: “I feel like I’m truly honoring my younger self” ( Fu et al., 2025 ; Newman et al., 2024 ; Louie et al., 2020 ) . When the human directs the project’s vision, AI occupies the role of a hired illustrator or junior teammate ( “it felt like directing a human paralegal. That’s my job.” ) ( Khadpe et al., 2020 ) , which does not threaten ownership ( Maier et al., 2026 ) . People can feel high ownership over tasks they do not possess the skills to complete without AI. Meanwhile, disowned tasks were more often things people could do, but chose to delegate: routine emails, lookups, and formatting. Owned and disowned tasks differ in nature: “a task that I wanted to have ownership of” compared to “a task that I would have rather not have had to do in the first place” , which aligns with Pierce et al. (2001) ’s defined motives towards psychological ownership. No ownership without comprehension. One route towards psychological ownership ( Pierce et al., 2001 ) is intimately knowing the task. In our study, ownership failed when respondents could not understand the artifact ( “I really don’t understand much of the codebase… I wouldn’t consider this my work at all… honestly I’ll probably be annoyed if I have to patch it in the future since I don’t even feel responsible for it.” ) ( Vaithilingam et al., 2022 ; Prather et al., 2024 ) or evaluate the output ( “I certainly don’t know enough about the topic to judge and evaluate the output — hence does not feel like something I would call ‘mine”’ ). Without comprehension, people felt little responsibility for maintaining and defending their work ( Seo et al., 2026 ) . Disclosure. Respondents’ willingness to disclose AI use varied widely and often depended on the situation. Individuals most willing to disclose AI use had concerns about correctly attributing the source of the work ( “I’d absolutely mention that almost all of it was AI generated, otherwise I’d be taking way more credit than I deserve” ) ( Fang et al., 2026 ; Walters and Wilder, 2023 ; Topaz et al., 2026 ) . People cautiously open to disclosure generally preferred to narrate the process of AI usage rather than a label of AI-generated or not ( He et al., 2025 ) : “I’d be willing to say I used AI for it if I clarified the limited extent to which it was used.” Often, they fear credit erasure ( Reif et al., 2025 ) under a simple label, worrying people would think “that I didn’t do any work… as if I don’t think for myself” or that “the code itself was mostly or entirely AI generated, thus discounting my contribution.” This concern has been reflected in previous work, with AI disclosure eroding trust ( Schilke and Reimann, 2025 ) ; damaging perceptions of the creator ( Rae, 2024 ) ; and impacting marginalized groups, future evaluations, and hiring outcomes ( Kadoma et al., 2025 ) . These concerns drove reluctance for respondents least willing to disclose AI use ( “I don’t tend to tell people I use AI for my emails when I do use it” ; “I would probably be ashamed to admit using the tools” ). Respondents also reported that disclosure depends “somewhat on the audience and the stakes” , as prior work found with AI-written dating profiles ( Barkallah and Zytko, 2026 ) . The surrounding organizations often influence these audiences: from a company that “encourages its use,” to situations where people would disclose to colleagues but not clients, to communities that might assume “delegation rather than oversight.” One lecturer reported that they would not share a failed AI experiment with colleagues who “are in love with AI and won’t hear anything bad against it.” As a result of these complex social pressures, willingness to disclose AI use is not necessarily coupled with feelings of pride or ownership of the work: “AI helped me clarify my thinking… [but] I think I would have to be careful disclosing that I used AI. Not that I’m not proud, but there is a stigma.” Disclosure is a distinct dimension: willingness to disclose AI use does not necessarily accompany pride or ownership of the work. 4 Takeaways and Recommendations From our survey, ownership emerges as a function of the process: iterating with the model, authoring the prompts, personalizing models, and rejecting and learning from bad outputs. AI has made previously unachievable tasks achievable, and it has created situations where people produce output they can’t fully evaluate or explain. As AI becomes more deeply integrated into society ( Kobiella et al., 2024 ) , we need to investigate how to preserve people’s creative agency ( Kumar et al., 2025 ; Guo et al., 2025 ) , ownership ( Polimetla et al., 2026 ) , and learning across various collaborative, evaluative, and social settings. These findings motivate further research into the themes identified in our results: Focus on process. We encourage study of not just how we can increase human investment in producing AI-assisted work, but also how we can increase process visibility for users and collaborators. For example, does recording and displaying the interaction history (edits, rejections, prompts, decisions, leadership) strengthen felt ownership and calibrate self-attribution? How does visibility of a collaborator’s process reshape ownership in shared projects? Can we measure adverse effects when people do not take ownership of the process, such as increased effort for reviewers of the work? Personalization. We encourage future work on personalization to not be purely driven by commercial incentives but also to promote user well-being and identity, such as by investigating the effects of perceived versus actual personalization. Several respondents felt they had uniquely scaffolded their AI to adapt to them, making it now their AI . Are these personalization methods actually unique and effective? How does informing people that their scaffolding methods are actually similar change their perception of ownership? Can we measure how differentiated a model is in its responses, and does this influence the user’s ownership or identification with the model? Enabling the previously impossible. Our exploration shows that people can feel great ownership over outputs that they could not have produced on their own, like illustrating a graphic novel. However, it is not clear how this sense of ownership coexists with low expertise in some areas of the output. Is this effect primarily present in cases where users may be strong evaluators but not strong producers of the work (e.g., the art critic vs. the artist)? Does revealing a skilled critique from an expert human collaborator change the felt ownership of an accomplishment outside of one’s domain? Promoting honest disclosure of AI use. People can more authentically own their work and learn healthy modes of human-AI collaboration when community cultures encourage honesty around discussing AI use. We encourage not just studying how readers or reviewers of work perceive AI disclosures, but also what factors encourage or discourage the producer from honestly disclosing AI use when it is required. For example, what formats of disclosure are most effective (e.g., categorical vs. narrative)? How does social feedback on output quality affect willingness to disclose use? Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) under Cooperative Agreement No. 2433429, "NSF Al Research Institute on Interaction for Al Assistants (ARIA)”, and by Google LLC. References Anderson et al. (2024) B. R. Anderson, J. H. Shah, and M. Kreminski Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation . In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition , C&C ’24 , New York, NY, USA , pp. 413–425 . External Links: ISBN 9798400704857 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Archiwaranguprok et al. (2025) C. Archiwaranguprok, C. Albrecht, P. Maes, K. Karahalios, and P. Pataranutaporn Simulating Psychological Risks in Human-AI Interactions: Real-Case Informed Modeling of AI-Induced Addiction, Anorexia, Depression, Homicide, Psychosis, and Suicide . arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08880 . External Links: Link Cited by: §1 . Barkallah and Zytko (2026) M. Barkallah and D. Zytko “I Wanted Them to Think That I Wrote That”: AI-Generated Self-Presentation on Dating Apps and Implications of Non-Disclosure on Informed Consent . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’26 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400722783 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Chakrabarty et al. (2025) T. Chakrabarty, P. Laban, and C. Wu Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through Edits . In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’25 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400713941 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Chatterji et al. (2025) A. Chatterji, T. Cunningham, D. J. Deming, Z. Hitzig, C. Ong, C. Y. Shan, and K. Wadman How People Use ChatGPT . Working Paper Technical Report 34255 , National Bureau of Economic Research . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §2 . Chung et al. (2026) V. Chung, P. Bernier, and A. Hudon Mass Media Narratives of Psychiatric Adverse Events Associated With Generative AI Chatbots: Rapid Scoping Review . JMIR Mental Health 13 , pp. e93040 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . Dhillon et al. (2024) P. S. Dhillon, S. Molaei, J. Li, M. Golub, S. Zheng, and L. P. Robert Shaping Human-AI Collaboration: Varied Scaffolding Levels in Co-writing with Language Models . In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400703300 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Doshi and Hauser (2024) A. R. Doshi and O. P. Hauser Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content . Science Advances 10 ( 28 ), pp. eadn5290 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Fang et al. (2026) J. Fang, V. X. Wen, and M. Lee What Influences Readers’ and Writers’ Perceived Necessity of AI Disclosure? . In Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , FAccT ’26 , New York, NY, USA , pp. 894–920 . External Links: ISBN 9798400725968 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Fu et al. (2025) Y. Fu, M. Newman, L. Going, Q. Feng, and J. H. Lee Exploring the Collaborative Co-Creation Process with AI: A Case Study in Novice Music Production . In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference , DIS ’25 , New York, NY, USA , pp. 1298–1312 . External Links: ISBN 9798400714856 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Gerlich (2025) M. Gerlich AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking . Societies 15 ( 1 ), pp. 6 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . Grinschgl et al. (2021) S. Grinschgl, F. Papenmeier, and H. S. Meyerhoff Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory . Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 74 ( 9 ), pp. 1477–1496 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . Guingrich et al. (2026) R. E. Guingrich, D. Mehta, and U. Bhatt Belief Offloading in Human-AI Interaction . arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08754 . External Links: Link Cited by: §1 . Guo et al. (2025) A. Guo, S. Sathyanarayanan, L. Wang, J. Heer, and A. X. Zhang From Pen to Prompt: How Creative Writers Integrate AI into their Writing Practice . In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Creativity and Cognition , C&C ’25 , New York, NY, USA , pp. 527–545 . External Links: ISBN 9798400712890 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 , §4 . Guo et al. (2024) Z. Guo, A. Lai, J. H. Thygesen, J. Farrington, T. Keen, and K. Li Large Language Models for Mental Health Applications: Systematic Review . JMIR Mental Health 11 , pp. e57400 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . He et al. (2025) J. He, S. Houde, and J. D. Weisz Which Contributions Deserve Credit? Perceptions of Attribution in Human-AI Co-Creation . In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’25 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400713941 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Hosseini and Seilani (2025) S. Hosseini and H. Seilani The role of agentic AI in shaping a smart future: A systematic review . Array 26 , pp. 100399 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . Hwang et al. (2025) A. H. Hwang, Q. V. Liao, S. L. Blodgett, A. Olteanu, and A. Trischler “It was 80% me, 20% AI”: Seeking Authenticity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models . Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 9 ( 2 ). External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Ippolito et al. (2022) D. Ippolito, A. Yuan, A. Coenen, and S. Burnam Creative Writing with an AI-Powered Writing Assistant: Perspectives from Professional Writers . arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05030 . External Links: Link Cited by: §3 . Kadoma et al. (2025) K. Kadoma, D. Metaxa, and M. Naaman Generative AI and Perceptual Harms: Who’s Suspected of using LLMs? . In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’25 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400713941 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Khadpe et al. (2020) P. Khadpe, R. Krishna, L. Fei-Fei, J. T. Hancock, and M. S. Bernstein Conceptual Metaphors Impact Perceptions of Human-AI Collaboration . Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4 ( CSCW2 ). External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Kirk et al. (2015) C. P. Kirk, S. D. Swain, and J. E. Gaskin I’m Proud of It: Consumer Technology Appropriation and Psychological Ownership . Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 23 ( 2 ), pp. 166–184 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . Kobiella et al. (2024) C. Kobiella, Y. S. Flores López, F. Waltenberger, F. Draxler, and A. Schmidt “If the Machine Is As Good As Me, Then What Use Am I?” – How the Use of ChatGPT Changes Young Professionals’ Perception of Productivity and Accomplishment . In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400703300 , Document , Link Cited by: §4 . Kosmyna et al. (2025) N. Kosmyna, E. Hauptmann, Y. T. Yuan, J. Situ, X. Liao, A. V. Beresnitzky, I. Braunstein, and P. Maes Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task . arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08872 . External Links: Link Cited by: §1 . Kumar et al. (2025) H. Kumar, J. Vincentius, E. Jordan, and A. Anderson Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on Divergent and Convergent Thinking . In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’25 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400713941 , Document , Link Cited by: §4 . Louie et al. (2020) R. Louie, A. Coenen, C. Z. Huang, M. Terry, and C. J. Cai Novice-AI Music Co-Creation via AI-Steering Tools for Deep Generative Models . In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’20 , New York, NY, USA , pp. 1–13 . External Links: ISBN 9781450367080 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Luettgau et al. (2025) L. Luettgau, V. Cheung, M. Dubois, K. Juechems, J. Bergs, L. Symes, H. Davidson, B. O’Dell, H. R. Kirk, M. Rollwage, and C. Summerfield People readily follow personal advice from AI but it does not improve their well-being . arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15352 . External Links: Link Cited by: §1 . Maier et al. (2026) S. Maier, M. Schneider, and S. Feuerriegel Partnering with Generative AI: Experimental Evaluation of Model-Led and Human-Led Interaction in Human-AI Co-Creation . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’26 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400722783 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . McKnight and Kashdan (2009) P. E. McKnight and T. B. Kashdan Purpose in Life as a System that Creates and Sustains Health and Well-Being: An Integrative, Testable Theory . Review of General Psychology 13 ( 3 ), pp. 242–251 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . Newman et al. (2024) M. Newman, K. Sun, I. B. Dalla Gasperina, G. Y. Shin, M. K. Pedraja, R. Kanchi, M. B. Song, R. Li, J. H. Lee, and J. Yip “I want it to talk like Darth Vader”: Helping Children Construct Creative Self-Efficacy with Generative AI . In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400703300 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Pierce et al. (2001) J. L. Pierce, T. Kostova, and K. T. Dirks Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations . Academy of Management Review 26 ( 2 ), pp. 298–310 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 , §3 . Polimetla et al. (2026) T. Polimetla, K. I. Gero, and E. L. Glassman A Paradigm for Creative Ownership . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’26 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400722783 , Document , Link Cited by: §1 , §1 , §2 , §3 , §4 . Prather et al. (2024) J. Prather, B. N. Reeves, J. Leinonen, S. MacNeil, A. S. Randrianasolo, B. A. Becker, B. Kimmel, J. Wright, and B. Briggs The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice Programmers . In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 , ICER ’24 , New York, NY, USA , pp. 469–486 . External Links: ISBN 9798400704758 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Rae (2024) I. Rae The Effects of Perceived AI Use On Content Perceptions . In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’24 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400703300 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Reif et al. (2025) J. A. Reif, R. P. Larrick, and J. B. Soll Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122 ( 19 ), pp. e2426766122 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Risko and Gilbert (2016) E. F. Risko and S. J. Gilbert Cognitive Offloading . Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20 ( 9 ), pp. 676–688 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 . Schilke and Reimann (2025) O. Schilke and M. Reimann The transparency dilemma: How AI disclosure erodes trust . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 188 , pp. 104405 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Seo et al. (2026) J. Seo, E. Deldari, and H. M. Mentis Whose Code Is It? How AI Autonomy Reshapes Ownership, Responsibility, and Disclosure in AI-Assisted Programming . In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , IUI ’26 , New York, NY, USA , pp. 393–425 . External Links: ISBN 9798400719844 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Shaikh et al. (2025) O. Shaikh, M. S. Lam, J. Hejna, Y. Shao, H. J. Cho, M. S. Bernstein, and D. Yang Aligning Language Models with Demonstrated Feedback . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , External Links: Link Cited by: §3 . Sharma et al. (2026) M. Sharma, M. McCain, R. Douglas, and D. Duvenaud Who’s in Charge? Disempowerment Patterns in Real-World LLM Usage . In Forty-third International Conference on Machine Learning , External Links: Link Cited by: §1 . Si et al. (2025) C. Si, D. Yang, and T. Hashimoto Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , External Links: Link Cited by: §3 . Sourati et al. (2026) Z. Sourati, F. Karimi-Malekabadi, M. Ozcan, C. McDaniel, A. Ziabari, J. Trager, A. N. Tak, M. Chen, F. Morstatter, and M. Dehghani The shrinking landscape of linguistic diversity in the age of large language models . Nature Human Behaviour . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Topaz et al. (2026) M. Topaz, N. Roguin, P. Gupta, Z. Zhang, and L. Peltonen Fabricated citations: an audit across 2·5 million biomedical papers . The Lancet 407 ( 10541 ), pp. 1779–1781 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Vaithilingam et al. (2022) P. Vaithilingam, T. Zhang, and E. L. Glassman Expectation vs. Experience: Evaluating the Usability of Code Generation Tools Powered by Large Language Models . In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI EA ’22 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9781450391566 , Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Walters and Wilder (2023) W. H. Walters and E. I. Wilder Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT . Scientific Reports 13 ( 1 ), pp. 14045 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Wan and Kalman (2026) Y. Wan and Y. M. Kalman Diverse AI personas can mitigate the homogenization effect in human-AI collaborative ideation . Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 8 , pp. 100289 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Wang et al. (2025) Z. Wang, N. I. Tripto, S. Park, Z. Li, and J. Zhou Catch Me If You Can? Not Yet: LLMs Still Struggle to Imitate the Implicit Writing Styles of Everyday Authors . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 , Suzhou, China , pp. 10040–10055 . External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §3 . Yang et al. (2026) M. Yang, S. Casper, J. Stray, J. Li, C. Jones, A. Gausen, N. Jaques, B. Christian, B. Gyevnár, H. Kirk, Z. He, D. Zhao, S. S. Looi, J. Levy, K. Hackenburg, E. Seger, M. Kowal, M. Malonza, L. Hewitt, H. Lin, M. Sap, D. Hadfield-Menell, T. Costello, R. Rabbany, J. Godbout, D. Rand, A. Kasirzadeh, G. Pennycook, Y. Bengio, and K. Pelrine AI Epistemic Risks: Emerging Mechanisms & Evidence . Note: SSRN preprint External Links: Document , Link Cited by: §1 , §1 . Yu et al. (2026) S. Yu, M. Cheng, A. Jabbar, I. Sucholutsky, K. M. Collins, D. Jurafsky, and R. D. Hawkins Cognitive offloading and the speedup illusion in human-AI interaction . In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , Rio de Janeiro, Brazil . External Links: Link Cited by: §D.3 , §1 . Zindulka et al. (2026) T. Zindulka, S. Goller, D. Fernandes, R. Welsch, and D. Buschek The AI Memory Gap: Users Misremember What They Created With AI or Without . In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’26 , New York, NY, USA . External Links: ISBN 9798400722783 , Document , Link Cited by: §D.3 , §2 . Appendix A Survey We include our Qualtrics survey questions. Response formats are marked MC (single choice), SA (select all that apply), DD (dropdown), and FF (free text). Conditional display logic and the task-reflection section are noted where they apply. Before beginning the survey, participants reviewed a consent page: “I am 18 or older and I consent to take part in this survey. [MC: Yes, I consent / No].” A.1 Demographic information • What is your age? [DD: Under 18; 18–24; 25–34; 35–44; 45–54; 55–64; 65 or older] • In which country do you currently live? [DD: country list] • How do you describe your gender? [MC: Woman; Man; Non-binary; Prefer to self-describe (FF); Prefer not to say] • How do you describe your race or ethnicity? [SA: Native American; Asian; African American; Hispanic or Latino; Middle Eastern; Pacific Islander; Caucasian; Other (FF); Prefer not to say] • What is the highest level of education you have completed? [DD: Less than high school; High school / GED; Some college; Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; Master’s degree; Doctorate / Professional degree; Prefer not to say] • What best describes your current employment status? [DD: Employed full-time; Employed part-time; Self-employed; Student; Not currently employed; Retired; Prefer not to say] • Which best describes the industry you work in? (If not currently working, select “Not applicable.”) [DD: Healthcare; Education; Technology / software; Finance / insurance; Retail / hospitality; Manufacturing / trades; Government / public sector; Media / arts / design; Legal; Science / engineering; Transportation / logistics; Other; Not applicable] • What is your job title or main role? [FF] A.2 AI usage • In the past 3 months, how often have you used any AI chatbot or assistant (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or an AI voice assistant)? [DD: Never; Less than monthly; Monthly; Weekly; Several times a week; Daily; Many times a day] • Which AI tools do you use? [SA: ChatGPT (OpenAI); Google Gemini; Claude (Anthropic); Grok (xAI); Microsoft Copilot; Meta AI; Perplexity; DeepSeek; An AI image generator/editor (e.g., Midjourney, Nano Banana); An AI video generator/editor (e.g., Google Veo, Runway); An AI music or audio generator/editor (e.g., Suno); An AI voice assistant or voice mode (e.g., ChatGPT voice, Gemini Live, Siri, Alexa); An AI coding assistant (e.g., Cursor, Copilot); An AI companion/character app (e.g., Character.AI, Replika); An AI chat embedded in a different tool/website (please specify what tool) (FF); Another AI tool (FF)] • When you use AI, how do you interact with the AI? [SA: Typing; Voice; Image/video upload; Document/file upload; Tool call/app integrations/MCPs; Other (FF)] • When did you start using AI tools regularly? [DD: I don’t use them regularly; In the last 3 months; 3–6 months ago; 6–12 months ago; 1–2 years ago; More than 2 years ago] • If you are employed, how much do you personally use AI in your job? [DD: Not at all; Rarely; Sometimes; Often; Constantly; Not applicable] • For the AI tools you use, who pays? [SA: I only use free versions; I pay out of my own pocket; My employer or company provides/pays; My school or university provides/pays; Someone else (e.g., family) pays; I get a student or other discount; Prefer not to say] • About how much do you personally pay for AI tools per month, in total? [DD: Less than $20; $20–29; $30–49; $50–99; $100–199; $200–499; $500 or more; Prefer not to say] (shown only if “I pay out of my own pocket” selected) • About how long have you been paying (out of pocket) for an AI tool? [DD: Less than 3 months; 3–6 months; 6–12 months; 1–2 years; More than 2 years; Prefer not to say] (shown only if “I pay out of my own pocket” selected) A.3 Task reflections (two blocks, randomized order) Preface shown before the blocks: “In this next section, we’ll ask about two recent tasks where you used AI — one where the result DID feel like yours, and one where the result DID NOT feel like yours. These will appear in a random order, so please check each section header before answering.” Each block began: “For the next questions, ‘AI’ means tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or other chatbots and assistants that generate text, answers, images, or recommendations. Please tell us about a task that you recently used AI to complete and where the result [felt very much like yours ∣ \mid did not really feel like yours]. Think about whether the result felt like yours, how much you shaped the task direction, and how independently you completed the task. Consider describing a creative project, something you planned for another person, a chore or errand, a decision you made, a work or school project, or anything else that comes to mind. There are no right or wrong answers — we’re just as interested in small, everyday tasks as in big ones.” • Briefly, what was the task? [FF] • Why did you need to do this task, and how did you use AI to complete it? If you used any other resources to complete the task, please describe them. [FF] • In what ways, if any, does the result of this task reflect who you are — your values, personality, or identity? If it doesn’t feel like a reflection of you, why not? [FF] • Reflect on other similar tasks you have done. How much does this task feel like your own work? Consider how you did/did not shape the direction of the task, any decisions you made, or how much you relied on others. [FF] • Think about how you feel about the outcome of this work. Are you proud of the final result and would you be comfortable telling others you used AI for it? [FF] • Was using AI worth it to you? Consider why you chose to use AI for this task and how the result might feel or be different if you hadn’t used AI. [FF] • Would you still have done this task without AI? [MC: Definitely yes; Probably yes; Might or might not; Probably not; Definitely not] • Would you be able to do this task without AI? [MC: Definitely yes; Probably yes; Might or might not; Probably not; Definitely not] A.4 Common tasks with AI Below are common tasks done using AI. Select any you have used AI to do in the past 30 days (1 month). [SA] • Looking up or checking specific information; Learning about a topic or how something works; How-to help or step-by-step guidance; Summarizing, explaining, or translating a document, article, or video; Editing or improving something I’d already written; Writing messages, emails, or other communication; Creative writing (stories, poems, fiction); Brainstorming or coming up with ideas; Making or editing images, audio, or video; Cooking, recipes, or meal planning; Health, fitness, beauty, or self-care; Medical or health-related questions; Shopping or product research; Planning something (a trip, an event, a gift, a schedule); Advice on a personal problem, relationship, or how I feel; Coding, math, or data analysis; Casual conversation, games, or roleplay; Something else (please specify) (FF) A.5 Comparison and closing • As a reminder, here are the tasks you described using AI for earlier. [Task 1; Task 2 inserted in.] Why did you choose to talk about these tasks and not any of the other tasks you selected above? [FF] • Between the two tasks you selected, what made the biggest difference in how much ownership you felt? If they felt similar, tell us that too. [FF] • Is there anything else about how you use AI — or about this survey — you’d like to share? [FF] Appendix B Survey Participation In Table 1 , we report the number of participants who completed each section of our survey. Since all questions were optional, the number of participants n n who completed each section varies. The main source of attrition comes from the task reflections section. In our figures and analyses, we report all results available and the number of participants n n involved. The median completion time for the survey was 24 minutes. Table 1: Number of participants who completed each section of the survey. Stage n Opened the survey and consented 117 Continued past the demographics page 108 Continued past the AI-usage page (reached the task reflections) 104 Described at least one task (high-ownership 57; low-ownership 56; both 49) 64 Completed the common-tasks checklist 53 Answered “why these tasks” / “biggest difference” 50 / 48 Reached the end of the survey 52 Appendix C Demographics We collect personal demographics as well as AI usage preferences, patterns, and payments to build additional context to ground our study. In Table 2 , we report the personal demographics of our participants. Due to our sourcing channels of university mailing lists, Slack channels, professional networks, and social media, our sample is biased with a bimodal distribution of young adults and senior professionals, who are predominantly Caucasian and US-centric, well-educated, and experienced with AI in the technology or education sector. This sample is a first step towards understanding trends in ownership in AI-assisted tasks. We encourage future work to apply our framework to a broader and more representative population. In Table 3 , we report AI usage frequency and familiarity from the respondents. Our participants lean towards active users of AI tools and have been using these tools for a while. Figure 2 highlights the AI tools participants use. Figure 3 shows the modes of interaction with AI tools. Table 4 reveals payment patterns of AI tools. C.1 Personal Demographics Table 2: Demographics of survey respondents. All questions were optional, so percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents for each question. For select-all-that-apply items, percentages do not sum to 100%. Other includes Argentina, New Zealand, Cyprus, Germany, and the Netherlands, each represented by 1 respondent. Demographic Response n % Age (n=62) 18–24 13 21.0% 25–34 3 4.8% 35–44 5 8.1% 45–54 21 33.9% 55–64 13 21.0% 65 or older 7 11.3% Country of Residence (n=60) United States 43 71.7% Australia 4 6.7% Canada 4 6.7% India 2 3.3% United Kingdom 2 3.3% Other* 5 8.3% Gender (n=64) Man 32 50.0% Woman 27 42.2% Other 4 6.2% Prefer not to say 1 1.6% Race/Ethnicity (select all) (n=64) American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0.0% Asian 7 10.9% Black or African American 0 0.0% Hispanic or Latino/a/e 4 6.2% Middle Eastern or North African 0 0.0% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0% White or Caucasian 51 79.7% Other 1 1.6% Prefer not to say 5 7.8% Education (n=64) Less than high school 0 0.0% High school / GED 2 3.1% Some college 14 21.9% Associate’s degree 0 0.0% Bachelor’s degree 17 26.6% Master’s degree 18 28.1% Doctorate / Professional degree 12 18.8% Prefer not to say 1 1.6% Employment Status (n=63) Employed full-time 25 39.7% Employed part-time 3 4.8% Self-employed 18 28.6% Student 11 17.5% Not currently employed 1 1.6% Retired 5 7.9% Work Industry (n=63) Education 10 15.9% Finance / insurance 1 1.6% Government / public sector 2 3.2% Healthcare 3 4.8% Legal 3 4.8% Media / arts / design 3 4.8% Retail / hospitality 1 1.6% Science / engineering 4 6.3% Technology / software 20 31.7% Other 8 12.7% Not applicable 8 12.7% C.2 AI Usage Table 3: Self-reported AI usage among survey respondents. Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents for each question, as not all participants answered every question. Question Response n % Usage Frequency (Past 3 Months) (n=54) Many times a day 35 64.8% Daily 5 9.3% Several times a week 8 14.8% Weekly 2 3.7% Monthly 2 3.7% Less than monthly 2 3.7% Length of AI Use (n=64) More than 2 years ago 30 46.9% 1–2 years ago 12 18.8% 6–12 months ago 8 12.5% 3–6 months ago 2 3.1% In the last 3 months 8 12.5% I don’t use them regularly 4 6.2% AI Use in Job (n=57) Constantly 28 49.1% Often 12 21.1% Sometimes 6 10.5% Rarely 4 7.0% Not at all 2 3.5% Not applicable 5 8.8% Figure 2: AI tools used by survey respondents (n = 64; select all that apply). Bar labels show the number of respondents who selected each tool, with the percentage of respondents to this question in parentheses. Because participants could select multiple tools, percentages do not sum to 100%. “Other” includes Kimi (x2) and Codex (x2) and 12 other tools mentioned once. Figure 3: Ways that survey respondents interact with AI tools (n = 64; select all that apply). Bar labels show the number of respondents who selected each tool, with the percentage of respondents to this question in parentheses. Because participants could select multiple tools, percentages do not sum to 100%. “Other” includes API calls (x2), HTML document reviews (x1), and Git (x1). C.3 Paid AI Usage Table 4: Self-reported paid AI usage among survey respondents. Percentages are calculated based on the number of respondents for each question, as not all participants answered every question. For select-all-that-apply items, percentages do not sum to 100%. The Monthly Spend and Length of Paid Use questions are restricted to respondents who reported paying for AI usage out of pocket. Question Response n % Who Pays (select all) (n=63) I only use free versions 17 27.0% I pay out of my own pocket 36 57.1% I get a student or other discount 4 6.3% My employer or company provides/pays 33 52.4% My school or university provides/pays 6 9.5% Monthly Spend ($) (n=36) Less than $20 6 16.7% $20-29 2 5.6% $30-49 8 22.2% $50-99 5 13.9% $100-199 7 19.4% $200-499 6 16.7% $500 or more 1 2.8% Prefer not to say 1 2.8% Length of Paid Use (n=36) More than 2 years 14 38.9% 1–2 years 8 22.2% 6–12 months 10 27.8% 3–6 months 2 5.6% Less than 3 months 2 5.6% Appendix D Survey Results D.1 Interest and Ability in Performing Tasks without AI In Figure 1 , we highlight the difference between participants being able to do the task without AI across high and low ownership tasks, which reveals a difference among those who responded “definitely yes”. When compared to whether they would have done the task without AI, there is less of a difference between high and low ownership tasks. Figure 4: Responses to questions about task completion without AI: whether respondents would have done the task (top) and whether they would have been able to do the task (bottom). Within each subplot, responses are split by high ownership and low ownership. Bars show the proportion of respondents in each group selecting each of the five Likert options (Definitely yes, Probably yes, Might or might not, Probably not, Definitely not) . D.2 Pride and Disclosure When asked about whether they felt proud of the result, respondents are generally proud of high ownership tasks and mixed for low ownership tasks. Disclosure of AI usage remains similar across high and low ownership tasks, though 10% are uncomfortable disclosing AI use for low ownership tasks. When pooled across high and low ownership tasks, comfort with disclosure is loosely tied to pride. Figure 5: Answers to “Are you proud of the final result and would you be comfortable telling others you used AI for it?”, coded by fixed keyword rules (proud / mixed or merely satisfied / not proud; comfortable / depends on audience, stakes or being able to explain the extent / uncomfortable). Bottom panel: both tasks pooled, comparing pride and disclosure trends ( n = 72 n=72 ). D.3 Common Tasks and AI Memory Gap Figure 6: Everyday AI use versus the tasks chosen for reflection. Grey: percent of checklist respondents ( n = 53 n=53 ) who used AI for each category in the past 30 days. Blue: percent of the 107 reflected tasks (mapped to checklist category via rule-based coding and LLM judging). On the common tasks checklist (Appendix A.4 ), respondents ( n = 53 n=53 ) reported a median of 9 of 17 task categories in the past 30 days. The most common were learning about a topic (94%) and looking up specific information (87%). Of the tasks respondents chose to reflect on, only a handful were lookup- or learning-related tasks. Tasks respondents chose to reflect on were often writing and technical tasks. Respondents’ explanations for their choices (Appendix A.5 ) were due to recency bias, salience, and having a clear result to judge ownership of. Ownership reflections often involved tasks that produced a significant artifact rather than informational use from day-to-day interaction. This is consistent with the literature on people underestimating their AI usage [ Yu et al., 2026 ] and forgetting what they created with AI [ Zindulka et al., 2026 ] . D.4 Anecdotes on Tasks Table 5: Pairs of high and low ownership tasks described by the same respondent, with the respondent’s own explanation of the difference. The tag under each task is that respondent’s answer to “Would you be able to do this task without AI?”. Respondent High ownership Low ownership What’s the difference? Tech executive Graphic novels adapted from their own novels definitely not Negotiating an Amazon refund through an AI agent definitely yes “I didn’t draw the art, but I feel the same as if I would have hired a human artist” Solo-practice attorney An AI pipeline that files scanned documents to the right matter definitely not A memorandum supporting an order to show cause definitely yes “I rewrite all communication generated by AI so I own it” Research mentor A team of agents building speech-recognition software definitely not Directing a student paper that students revised with AI definitely yes “Who’s doing the prompting, who’s defending the claims” IT analyst and digital artist A 3-D multichannel audio-synthesis environment definitely not An adventure game about personal issues, built hands-off definitely not “Task 2 was intended to be as hands off as possible, so I would not call the results mine” Artisan Diagnosing a car problem while steering the search probably not Diagnosing a car problem while passively receiving the answer probably not “how I engaged in the direction of the search” Retiree Planning an overseas trip through extended back-and-forth probably yes Identifying a bird from a photo might or might not “a long process with much back and forth. I think that made me feel more ownership” Student (research intern) Debugging cluster software by talking through the errors probably yes A school-club website probably not “Claude was as confused as me, so when the problem finally did get solved I felt like I actually played a role” Student Personal blog posts probably yes A GIS data-processing pipeline probably not “The % of text created that was typed by me rather than copy-and-pasted” Postdoctoral researcher Streaming camera data from an embedded device for robot training probably yes A conference website definitely yes “The first task I did on my own volition and self-interest, the second task I did because it was a responsibility” Engineer A map of locations for a website probably yes A comedic letter about a friend, read at a party definitely yes “The strength of my initial vision for what the result should be, and the amount of existing work I had before I used the tool” Clinical informatics specialist Deciding which jobs to target in a career change might or might not A LinkedIn community post definitely yes “the AI helped with the pattern recognition that I wasn’t seeing in my own experience and choices” QA analyst Test-coverage tracking and documentation definitely yes Formatting test cases definitely yes “the ownership felt the same. It was work that I did with the use of the tool” Experimental support, please view the build logs for errors. Generated by L A T E xml . Instructions for reporting errors We are continuing to improve HTML versions of papers, and your feedback helps enhance accessibility and mobile support. To report errors in the HTML that will help us improve conversion and rendering, choose any of the methods listed below: Click the "Report Issue" ( ) button, located in the page header. Tip: You can select the relevant text first, to include it in your report. Our team has already identified the following issues . We appreciate your time reviewing and reporting rendering errors we may not have found yet. Your efforts will help us improve the HTML versions for all readers, because disability should not be a barrier to accessing research. Thank you for your continued support in championing open access for all. Have a free development cycle? Help support accessibility at arXiv! Our collaborators at LaTeXML maintain a list of packages that need conversion , and welcome developer contributions . We gratefully acknowledge support from our major funders , member institutions , , and all contributors. About · Help · Contact · Subscribe · Copyright · Privacy · Accessibility · Operational Status (opens in new tab) Major funding support from