In-Browser Human-AI Co-Writing for Counterspeech: An Exploratory User Study of Agency, Perceived Response Quality, and Time

Overview & Synopsis

Writing counterspeech that challenges online hate speech can be cognitively and emotionally demanding, whereas fully automated generation may weaken users' sense of voice and responsibility. We present an in-browser AI-assisted co-writing tool that enables users to contribute their own ideas and offers three editable suggestions generated by a large language model using dynamically retrieved hate speech-counterspeech examples from the Multitarget CONAN dataset. We evaluated the tool in an exploratory within-subject study with ten participants, complemented by think-aloud observations and semi-structured interviews with half of the participants. Participants wrote responses to three self-selected hate speech instances without assistance and then repeated the task with the tool. Final responses were subsequently peer-rated for empathy, non-toxicity, relevance, specificity, and persuasiveness. Participants evaluated the interface positively, and qualitative accounts linked user input, selection among alternatives, and small edits to perceived agency and responsibility. Assisted responses received higher descriptive mean ratings across all five proxies, with the largest difference for empathy. Mean composition time increased from 2.52 to 3.88 minutes. Qualitative findings further revealed a tension between empathy-oriented outputs and users' desire to express legitimate anger or direct disagreement. We contribute exploratory design guidance for treating AI-assisted counterspeech as deliberative co-writing rather than automated text production.