With the rise of AI-generated content spewed at scale from large language models (LLMs), genuine concerns about the spread of fake news have intensified. The perceived ability of LLMs to produce convincing fake news at scale poses new challenges for both human and automated fake news detection systems. To address this gap, this paper presents the findings from a university-level competition that aimed to explore how LLMs can be used by humans to create fake news, and to assess the ability of human annotators and AI models to detect it. A total of 110 participants used LLMs to create 252 unique fake news stories, and 84 annotators participated in the detection tasks. Our findings indicate that LLMs are ~68% more effective at detecting real news than humans. However, for fake news detection, the performance of LLMs and humans remains comparable (~60% accuracy). Additionally, we examine the impact of visual elements (e.g., pictures) in news on the accuracy of detecting fake news stories. Finally, we also examine various strategies used by fake news creators to enhance the credibility of their AI-generated content. This work highlights the increasing complexity of detecting AI-generated fake news, particularly in collaborative human-AI settings.
We audit how hallucination in large language models (LLMs) is characterized in peer-reviewed literature, using a critical examination of 103 publications across NLP research. Through the examination of the literature, we identify a lack of agreement with the term ‘hallucination’ in the field of NLP. Additionally, to compliment our audit, we conduct a survey with 171 practitioners from the field of NLP and AI to capture varying perspectives on hallucination. Our analysis calls for the necessity of explicit definitions and frameworks outlining hallucination within NLP, highlighting potential challenges, and our survey inputs provide a thematic understanding of the influence and ramifications of hallucination in society.
Hypothesis formulation and testing are central to empirical research. A strong hypothesis is a best guess based on existing evidence and informed by a comprehensive view of relevant literature. However, with exponential increase in the number of scientific articles published annually, manual aggregation and synthesis of evidence related to a given hypothesis is a challenge. Our work explores the ability of current large language models (LLMs) to discern evidence in support or refute of specific hypotheses based on the text of scientific abstracts. We share a novel dataset for the task of scientific hypothesis evidencing using community-driven annotations of studies in the social sciences. We compare the performance of LLMs to several state of the art methods and highlight opportunities for future research in this area. Our dataset is shared with the research community: https://github.com/Sai90000/ScientificHypothesisEvidencing.git
As users engage in public discourse, the rate of voluntarily disclosed personal information has seen a steep increase. So-called self-disclosure can result in a number of privacy concerns. Users are often unaware of the sheer amount of personal information they share across online forums, commentaries, and social networks, as well as the power of modern AI to synthesize and gain insights from this data. This paper presents an approach to detect emotional and informational self-disclosure in natural language. We hypothesize that identifying frame semantics can meaningfully support this task. Specifically, we use Semantic Role Labeling to identify the lexical units and their semantic roles that signal self-disclosure. Experimental results on Reddit data show the performance gain of our method when compared to standard text classification methods based on BiLSTM, and BERT. In addition to improved performance, our approach provides insights into the drivers of disclosure behaviors.