aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that individual user habits regarding Large Language Model usage are remarkably sticky, with population-level trends failing to predict how specific users evolve over time. The research also highlights a significant skew in existing open datasets like WildChat-4.8M toward highly proficient "power" users, cautioning researchers against generalizing findings from such collections to typical interactions. Ultimately, the work underscores the necessity of longitudinal data for accurately modeling user heterogeneity and the challenges inherent in shifting established AI usage patterns.
Adopt $\neq$ Adapt: Longitudinal Analyses of LLM Conversations in the Wild
arXiv:2605.29018v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Although a growing body of research has begun to describe user--LLM interactions, the picture it paints is largely static; little is known about how individual users change their behavior over time. To address this gap, we analyze the conversational trajectories of ~12,000 randomly sampled Microsoft Bing Copilot users and compare these with data from WildChat-4.8M. While the Copilot data contains significant population-level trends, we find that trends in individual user trajectories are much weaker; user habits prove to be overwhelmingly sticky. We also find stark differences between users of different activity levels: more active users have more successful conversations and use the LLM for more complex and professionally oriented tasks. Some user trends also appear in WildChat-4.8M, but we find evidence that this dataset is significantly skewed towards highly proficient "power" users. Ultimately, our results suggest that existing user behavior is difficult to change and demonstrate the extent of user heterogeneity. Our comparison between datasets highlights that WildChat does not represent typical user--AI interactions, an important caveat for downstream uses of the data.
Abstract:Although a growing body of research has begun to describe user--LLM interactions, the picture it paints is largely static; little is known about how individual users change their behavior over time. To address this gap, we analyze the conversational trajectories of ~12,000 randomly sampled Microsoft Bing Copilot users and compare these with data from WildChat-4.8M. While the Copilot data contains significant population-level trends, we find that trends in individual user trajectories are much weaker; user habits prove to be overwhelmingly sticky. We also find stark differences between users of different activity levels: more active users have more successful conversations and use the LLM for more complex and professionally oriented tasks. Some user trends also appear in WildChat-4.8M, but we find evidence that this dataset is significantly skewed towards highly proficient "power" users. Ultimately, our results suggest that existing user behavior is difficult to change and demonstrate the extent of user heterogeneity. Our comparison between datasets highlights that WildChat does not represent typical user--AI interactions, an important caveat for downstream uses of the data.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2605.29018 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.29018v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.29018 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 269 words
Related coverage

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026