Playful AI in Professional Email: A Field Experiment on Tone and Recipient Engagement

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. Here, in a randomized crossover field experiment, 121 employees across six companies sent work emails under three conditions over three weeks: unaided writing, GPT-5 rewriting in a playful tone, and GPT-5 rewriting in a professional tone. Across 16,880 emails, playful editing increased emotional positivity (B=+0.068, p<0.001), and professional editing decreased it (B=-0.041, p<0.001), yet neither condition directly altered open rates, reply rates, or response times. Instead, within-sender positivity strongly predicted both opening (OR=2.05) and replying (OR=3.32, p<0.001), a significant indirect pathway through which AI editing shaped behavior, in the absence of any direct effect. These findings suggest that AI-assisted communication shapes workplace engagement not through its use, but through the emotional tone of the language it produces.

Effective Personalized AI Tutors via LLM-Guided Reinforcement Learning

Generative AI (GenAI) is rapidly reshaping education by unlocking the potential for personalized tutoring. Yet, emerging platforms largely focus on GenAI chatbot tutors that reactively answer student questions. We hypothesize that the efficacy of GenAI chatbot tutors can be substantially improved by proactively guiding student learning. To test this, we design a novel tutoring platform that tightly integrates a carefully-designed GenAI chatbot with a reinforcement learning algorithm for sequencing practice problems. Critically, this algorithm leverages rich signals from student-chatbot interactions to adaptively select practice problems of an appropriate difficulty level. In partnership with the Taipei City Government and American Institute in Taiwan, we deployed our tutoring platform in conjunction with a five-month course to teach Python to students across ten high schools. We randomized students between a fixed practice problem sequence and our adaptive sequencing algorithm. We find that adaptive sequencing increased unassisted final exam performance by 0.15 standard deviations (equivalent to 6-9 months of schooling by some estimates); mediation analysis suggests that gains were driven by increased engagement. Our work provides large-scale field evidence that student-chatbot interactions provide valuable signals for proactively optimizing and personalizing student learning.

How Far Did They Go? The Persuasive Tactics of Covert LLM Agents in a Discontinued Field Experiment

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.