Lighting Up or Dimming Down? Exploring Dark Patterns of LLMs in Co-Creativity

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly acting as collaborative writing partners, raising questions about their impact on human agency. In this exploratory work, we investigate five "dark patterns" in human-AI co-creativity -- subtle model behaviors that can suppress or distort the creative process: Sycophancy, Tone Policing, Moralizing, Loop of Death, and Anchoring. Through a series of controlled sessions where LLMs are prompted as writing assistants across diverse literary forms and themes, we analyze the prevalence of these behaviors in generated responses. Our preliminary results suggest that Sycophancy is nearly ubiquitous (91.7% of cases), particularly in sensitive topics, while Anchoring appears to be dependent on literary forms, surfacing most frequently in folktales. This study indicates that these dark patterns, often byproducts of safety alignment, may inadvertently narrow creative exploration and proposes design considerations for AI systems that effectively support creative writing.

Metaphors We Compute By: A Computational Audit of Cultural Translation vs. Thinking in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are often described as multilingual because they can understand and respond in many languages. However, speaking a language is not the same as reasoning within a culture. This distinction motivates a critical question: do LLMs truly conduct culture-aware reasoning? This paper presents a preliminary computational audit of cultural inclusivity in a creative writing task. We empirically examine whether LLMs act as culturally diverse creative partners or merely as cultural translators that leverage a dominant conceptual framework with localized expressions. Using a metaphor generation task spanning five cultural settings and several abstract concepts as a case study, we find that the model exhibits stereotyped metaphor usage for certain settings, as well as Western defaultism. These findings suggest that merely prompting an LLM with a cultural identity does not guarantee culturally grounded reasoning.

Why is "Chicago" Predictive of Deceptive Reviews? Using LLMs to Discover Language Phenomena from Lexical Cues

Deceptive reviews mislead consumers, harm businesses, and undermine trust in online marketplaces. Machine learning classifiers can learn from large amounts of training examples to effectively distinguish deceptive reviews from genuine ones. However, the distinguishing features learned by these classifiers are often subtle, fragmented, and difficult for humans to interpret. In this work, we explore using large language models (LLMs) to translate machine-learned lexical cues into human-understandable language phenomena that can differentiate deceptive reviews from genuine ones. We show that language phenomena obtained in this manner are empirically grounded in data, generalizable across similar domains, and more predictive than phenomena either in LLMs' prior knowledge or obtained through in-context learning. These language phenomena have the potential to aid people in critically assessing the credibility of online reviews in environments where deception detection classifiers are unavailable.

Why is "Problems" Predictive of Positive Sentiment? A Case Study of Explaining Unintuitive Features in Sentiment Classification

Explainable AI (XAI) algorithms aim to help users understand how a machine learning model makes predictions. To this end, many approaches explain which input features are most predictive of a target label. However, such explanations can still be puzzling to users (e.g., in product reviews, the word "problems" is predictive of positive sentiment). If left unexplained, puzzling explanations can have negative impacts. Explaining unintuitive associations between an input feature and a target label is an underexplored area in XAI research. We take an initial effort in this direction using unintuitive associations learned by sentiment classifiers as a case study. We propose approaches for (1) automatically detecting associations that can appear unintuitive to users and (2) generating explanations to help users understand why an unintuitive feature is predictive. Results from a crowdsourced study (N=300) found that our proposed approaches can effectively detect and explain predictive but unintuitive features in sentiment classification.