The Impact of AI-Generated Text on the Internet

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.26965v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:06:14 GMT
• Title: The Impact of AI-Generated Text on the Internet
• Abstract summary: We study how much of the internet is actually AI-generated or AI-edited.<n>We find that by mid-2025, roughly 35% of newly published websites were classified as AI-generated or AI-assisted.<n>We do not, however, find statistically significant evidence supporting the hypothesis that an increased rate of AI-generated text on the internet decreases factual accuracy or stylistic diversity.
• Score: 0.7024533257206088
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The proliferation of AI-generated and AI-assisted text on the internet is feared to contribute to a degradation in semantic and stylistic diversity, factual accuracy, and other negative developments (sometimes subsumed under the Dead Internet Theory). What has hindered answering these questions is that it has not been understood just how much of the internet is actually AI-generated or AI-edited. To this end, we construct a representative sample of websites published on the internet between 2022 and 2025 using the Internet Archive, and apply a state-of-the-art AI text detector on them. We find that by mid-2025, roughly 35% of newly published websites were classified as AI-generated or AI-assisted, up from zero before ChatGPT's launch in late 2022. We also find statistically significant evidence for some of the identified hypotheses; for example, that increases in AI-generated text on the internet correlate negatively with semantic diversity and positively with the prevalence of positive sentiment. We do not, however, find statistically significant evidence supporting the hypothesis that an increased rate of AI-generated text on the internet decreases factual accuracy or stylistic diversity. Notably, this diverges from public perception, which we measure in a user study, where the majority of US adults turned out to believe in all four of the above-mentioned hypotheses. Individuals who do not use AI or use it infrequently tend to believe in these negative impacts more than those who use it frequently; similarly, individuals who hold negative views of AI tend to believe in these hypotheses more than those with favorable views of the technology.

Related papers

• One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread [39.0786847687173]
  Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation.<n>We introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal.<n>We show that AI changes what public history means. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T06:27:21Z)
• "That's AI Slop, You Bot!" Studying Accusations, Evidence, and Credibility in Online Discourse Towards LLM-Generated Comments [0.0]
  Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking.<n>How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes?<n>We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T13:40:22Z)
• Assessing GPTZero's Accuracy in Identifying AI vs. Human-Written Essays [0.0]
  GPTZero is the most-used AI detector, but its reliability in distinguishing human-authored texts is limited.<n>A vast majority of the AI-generated papers were detected accurately (ranging from 91-100% AI believed generation), while the human generated essays fluctuated.<n>These findings suggest that although GPTZero is effective at detecting purely AI-generated content, its reliability in distinguishing human-authored texts is limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T04:53:27Z)
• Could AI Trace and Explain the Origins of AI-Generated Images and Text? [53.11173194293537]
  AI-generated content is increasingly prevalent in the real world.<n> adversaries might exploit large multimodal models to create images that violate ethical or legal standards.<n>Paper reviewers may misuse large language models to generate reviews without genuine intellectual effort.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T20:51:54Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  This study systematically evaluations twelve state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset.<n>Our findings reveal that detectors frequently flag even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: Examining Human Judgment Against Text Labeled as AI Generated [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content.<n>We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• Consent in Crisis: The Rapid Decline of the AI Data Commons [74.68176012363253]
  General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems are built on massive swathes of public web data. We conduct the first, large-scale, longitudinal audit of the consent protocols for the web domains underlying AI training corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T16:50:18Z)
• Perceptions of Sentient AI and Other Digital Minds: Evidence from the AI, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) Survey [0.0]
  One in five U.S. adults believed some AI systems are currently sentient, and 38% supported legal rights for sentient AI.<n>The median 2023 forecast was that sentient AI would arrive in just five years.<n>The development of safe and beneficial AI requires not just technical study but understanding the complex ways in which humans perceive and coexist with digital minds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T21:04:39Z)
• Artificial intelligence adoption in the physical sciences, natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences and the arts and humanities: A bibliometric analysis of research publications from 1960-2021 [73.06361680847708]
  In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI, but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times. In 1960 14% of 333 research fields were related to AI (many in computer science), but this increased to over half of all research fields by 1972, over 80% by 1986 and over 98% in current times. We conclude that the context of the current surge appears different, and that interdisciplinary AI application is likely to be sustained.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T14:08:07Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Collecting the Public Perception of AI and Robot Rights [10.791267046450077]
  The European Parliament proposed advanced robots could be granted "electronic personalities" This paper collects online users' first impressions of 11 possible rights that could be granted to autonomous electronic agents of the future.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-04T05:35:29Z)

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.