Large Language Models as 'Hidden Persuaders': Fake Product Reviews are Indistinguishable to Humans and Machines

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13313v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:54:56 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models as 'Hidden Persuaders': Fake Product Reviews are Indistinguishable to Humans and Machines
• Authors: Weiyao Meng, John Harvey, James Goulding, Chris James Carter, Evgeniya Lukinova, Andrew Smith, Paul Frobisher, Mina Forrest, Georgiana Nica-Avram,
• Abstract summary: Three studies show that humans are no longer able to distinguish between real and fake product reviews generated by machines.<n>Results reveal that review systems everywhere are now susceptible to mechanised fraud if they do not depend on trustworthy purchase verification.
• Score: 1.857435854150621
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reading and evaluating product reviews is central to how most people decide what to buy and consume online. However, the recent emergence of Large Language Models and Generative Artificial Intelligence now means writing fraudulent or fake reviews is potentially easier than ever. Through three studies we demonstrate that (1) humans are no longer able to distinguish between real and fake product reviews generated by machines, averaging only 50.8% accuracy overall - essentially the same that would be expected by chance alone; (2) that LLMs are likewise unable to distinguish between fake and real reviews and perform equivalently bad or even worse than humans; and (3) that humans and LLMs pursue different strategies for evaluating authenticity which lead to equivalently bad accuracy, but different precision, recall and F1 scores - indicating they perform worse at different aspects of judgment. The results reveal that review systems everywhere are now susceptible to mechanised fraud if they do not depend on trustworthy purchase verification to guarantee the authenticity of reviewers. Furthermore, the results provide insight into the consumer psychology of how humans judge authenticity, demonstrating there is an inherent 'scepticism bias' towards positive reviews and a special vulnerability to misjudge the authenticity of fake negative reviews. Additionally, results provide a first insight into the 'machine psychology' of judging fake reviews, revealing that the strategies LLMs take to evaluate authenticity radically differ from humans, in ways that are equally wrong in terms of accuracy, but different in their misjudgments.

Related papers

• Mind the Blind Spots: A Focus-Level Evaluation Framework for LLM Reviews [46.0003776499898]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can automatically draft reviews now.<n> determining whether LLM-generated reviews are trustworthy requires systematic evaluation.<n>We introduce a focus-level evaluation framework that operationalizes the focus as a normalized distribution of attention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T12:05:27Z)
• Fact-or-Fair: A Checklist for Behavioral Testing of AI Models on Fairness-Related Queries [85.909363478929]
  In this study, we focus on 19 real-world statistics collected from authoritative sources.<n>We develop a checklist comprising objective and subjective queries to analyze behavior of large language models.<n>We propose metrics to assess factuality and fairness, and formally prove the inherent trade-off between these two aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Unmasking Illusions: Understanding Human Perception of Audiovisual Deepfakes [49.81915942821647]
  This paper aims to evaluate the human ability to discern deepfake videos through a subjective study. We present our findings by comparing human observers to five state-ofthe-art audiovisual deepfake detection models. We found that all AI models performed better than humans when evaluated on the same 40 videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:57:15Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• MAiDE-up: Multilingual Deception Detection of GPT-generated Hotel Reviews [29.174548645439756]
  We make publicly available the MAiDE-up dataset, consisting of 10,000 real and 10,000 AI-generated fake hotel reviews. We conduct extensive linguistic analyses to compare the AI fake hotel reviews to real hotel reviews. We find that these dimensions influence how well we can detect AI-generated fake reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:08:06Z)
• Unmasking Falsehoods in Reviews: An Exploration of NLP Techniques [0.0]
  This research paper proposes a machine learning model to identify deceptive reviews. To accomplish this, an n-gram model and max features are developed to effectively identify deceptive content. The experimental results reveal that the passive aggressive classifier stands out among the various algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T06:35:43Z)
• Combat AI With AI: Counteract Machine-Generated Fake Restaurant Reviews on Social Media [77.34726150561087]
  We propose to leverage the high-quality elite Yelp reviews to generate fake reviews from the OpenAI GPT review creator. We apply the model to predict non-elite reviews and identify the patterns across several dimensions. We show that social media platforms are continuously challenged by machine-generated fake reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-10T19:40:10Z)
• Online Fake Review Detection Using Supervised Machine Learning And BERT Model [0.0]
  We propose to use BERT (Bidirectional Representation from Transformers) model to extract word embeddings from texts (i.e. reviews) The results indicate that the SVM classifiers outperform the others in terms of accuracy and f1-score with an accuracy of 87.81%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-09T09:40:56Z)
• Impact of Sentiment Analysis in Fake Review Detection [0.0]
  We propose developing an initial research paper for investigating fake reviews by using sentiment analysis. Ten research papers are identified that show fake reviews, and they discuss currently available solutions for predicting or detecting fake reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-18T03:17:47Z)
• Fake or Genuine? Contextualised Text Representation for Fake Review Detection [0.4724825031148411]
  This paper proposes a new ensemble model that employs transformer architecture to discover the hidden patterns in a sequence of fake reviews and detect them precisely. The experimental results using semi-real benchmark datasets showed the superiority of the proposed model over state-of-the-art models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-29T00:54:47Z)
• Fake Reviews Detection through Analysis of Linguistic Features [1.609940380983903]
  This paper explores a natural language processing approach to identify fake reviews. We study 15 linguistic features for distinguishing fake and trustworthy online reviews. We were able to discriminate fake from real reviews with high accuracy using these linguistic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T21:16:30Z)

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.