Planning-stage AI ideas were often redundant with or rejected in favor of writers' own ideas: idea attribution was 17.8% among users versus 2.9% among non-users, but ownership did not differ between users and non-users within ai plan.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Qualitatively, participants reported AI planning ideas were redundant with their own or that they chose their own ideas instead. → redundancy-qual
Evidence¶
redundancy-qual¶
Katy Ilonka Gero, Tao Long, Carly Schnitzler, and Paramveer S. Dhillon. 2026. From Planning to Revision: How AI Writing Support at Different Stages Alters Ownership. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '26), June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3800645.3813003
q2 · i? · qualitative · r2
Thematic analysis of optional free-response survey answers (87% of participants answered at least one) found ai plan participants "often request ideas and then not use or incorporate them", citing redundancy or preference for their own ideas.
"In some cases this was because the AI-generated ideas were redundant with participants’ own ideas, e.g., "the AI did come up with outline ideas, but they matched/confirmed what I had already thought"."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- AI support shifts perceived attribution of ideas and text toward the AI, most strongly for AI-generated drafts, and an AI draft based on the writer's own outline contributed more ideas than expected (27%). — related
- Any AI writing support decreases feelings of ownership compared to no AI support, with ownership following a gradient by stage (highest with no AI, then planning, revision, and AI-generated draft lowest). — related
- AI support during drafting lowers ownership substantially more than support during planning or revision, and planning support preserves more ownership than revision support. — related
- Experimental-group students framed AI as a flexible writing scaffold supporting their own composing rather than a substitute for authorship — related
- Synchronous AI suggestions shape subsequent writing, offering new ideas but risking influence over the writer's voice and argument — related
- Students reported text supports structured, iterative planning while some valued voice for getting initial ideas out — related
- Evaluators attribute substantially less ownership to writers who used GenAI ideas, but impose only a marginal profit-sharing penalty — related
- Synchronous collaboration with an artificial agent amplifies contextual misalignment because the agent only sees ongoing output, not the writer's planning process — related
- AI ghostwriter effect: users do not claim ownership of AI-generated texts yet fail to publicly acknowledge the AI's contribution — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
planning-ai-ideas-redundant-unused |
title |
Planning-stage AI ideas were often redundant with or rejected in favor of writers' own ideas: idea attribution was 17.8% among users versus 2.9% among non-users, but ownership did not differ between users and non-users within ai plan. |
description |
Planning-stage AI ideas were often redundant with or rejected in favor of writers' own ideas: idea attribution was 17.8% among users versus 2.9% among non-users, but ownership did not differ between users and non-user... |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — redundancy-qual |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.