This is a highly circular method of evaluation. It correlates "fluency behaviors" with longer conversations and more back and forth.

What it notably does not correlate any of these these behaviors with is external value or utility.

It is entirely possible that those people who are getting the most value out of LLMs are the ones with shorter interactions, and that those who engage in lengthier interactions are distracting themselves, wasting time, or chasing rabbit trails (the equivalent of falling in a wiki-hole, at the most charitable.)

I can't prove that either -- but this data doesn't weigh in one way or the other. It only confirms that people who are chatty with their LLMs are chatty with their LLMs.

In my own case, I find the longer I "chat" with the LLM the more likely I am to end up with a false belief, a bad strategy, or some other rabbit hole. 90% of the value (in my personal experience) is in the initial prompt, perhaps with 1-2 clarifying follow-ups.