Users Favor LLM-Generated Content -- Until They Know It's AI
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16458v1
- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:14:02 GMT
- Title: Users Favor LLM-Generated Content -- Until They Know It's AI
- Authors: Petr Parshakov, Iuliia Naidenova, Sofia Paklina, Nikita Matkin, Cornel Nesseler,
- Abstract summary: We investigate how individuals evaluate human and large langue models generated responses to popular questions when the source of the content is either concealed or disclosed.<n>Our findings indicate that, overall, participants tend to prefer AI-generated responses.<n>When the AI origin is revealed, this preference diminishes significantly, suggesting that evaluative judgments are influenced by the disclosure of the response's provenance.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: In this paper, we investigate how individuals evaluate human and large langue models generated responses to popular questions when the source of the content is either concealed or disclosed. Through a controlled field experiment, participants were presented with a set of questions, each accompanied by a response generated by either a human or an AI. In a randomized design, half of the participants were informed of the response's origin while the other half remained unaware. Our findings indicate that, overall, participants tend to prefer AI-generated responses. However, when the AI origin is revealed, this preference diminishes significantly, suggesting that evaluative judgments are influenced by the disclosure of the response's provenance rather than solely by its quality. These results underscore a bias against AI-generated content, highlighting the societal challenge of improving the perception of AI work in contexts where quality assessments should be paramount.
Related papers
- Human Bias in the Face of AI: The Role of Human Judgement in AI Generated Text Evaluation [48.70176791365903]
This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content.
We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z) - Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation [66.06040950325969]
This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation.<n>By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-27T05:56:04Z) - Aligning Large Language Models from Self-Reference AI Feedback with one General Principle [61.105703857868775]
We propose a self-reference-based AI feedback framework that enables a 13B Llama2-Chat to provide high-quality feedback.
Specifically, we allow the AI to first respond to the user's instructions, then generate criticism of other answers based on its own response as a reference.
Finally, we determine which answer better fits human preferences according to the criticism.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-17T03:51:46Z) - The effect of source disclosure on evaluation of AI-generated messages:
A two-part study [0.0]
We examined the influence of source disclosure on people's evaluation of AI-generated health prevention messages.
We found that source disclosure significantly impacted the evaluation of the messages but did not significantly alter message rankings.
For those with moderate levels of negative attitudes towards AI, source disclosure decreased the preference for AI-generated messages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-27T05:20:47Z) - Analyzing Character and Consciousness in AI-Generated Social Content: A
Case Study of Chirper, the AI Social Network [0.0]
The study embarks on a comprehensive exploration of AI behavior, analyzing the effects of diverse settings on Chirper's responses.
Through a series of cognitive tests, the study gauges the self-awareness and pattern recognition prowess of Chirpers.
An intriguing aspect of the research is the exploration of the potential influence of a Chirper's handle or personality type on its performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-30T15:40:18Z) - Selective Explanations: Leveraging Human Input to Align Explainable AI [40.33998268146951]
We propose a general framework for generating selective explanations by leveraging human input on a small sample.
As a showcase, we use a decision-support task to explore selective explanations based on what the decision-maker would consider relevant to the decision task.
Our experiments demonstrate the promise of selective explanations in reducing over-reliance on AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-23T19:00:02Z) - The Role of AI in Drug Discovery: Challenges, Opportunities, and
Strategies [97.5153823429076]
The benefits, challenges and drawbacks of AI in this field are reviewed.
The use of data augmentation, explainable AI, and the integration of AI with traditional experimental methods are also discussed.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-08T23:23:39Z) - Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Measuring Influence of AI
'Assessments' on Moral Decision-Making [48.66982301902923]
We examined the effect of feedback from false AI on moral decision-making about donor kidney allocation.
We found some evidence that judgments about whether a patient should receive a kidney can be influenced by feedback about participants' own decision-making perceived to be given by AI.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-13T14:15:18Z) - Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration
in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI.
We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.