"That's AI Slop, You Bot!" Studying Accusations, Evidence, and Credibility in Online Discourse Towards LLM-Generated Comments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12073v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:40:22 GMT
• Title: "That's AI Slop, You Bot!" Studying Accusations, Evidence, and Credibility in Online Discourse Towards LLM-Generated Comments
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gatekeeping of perceived authenticity without actually screening for AI. This research extends signaling theory by showing that substitute signals used socially can grow even when inaccurate if the underlying detection problem cannot be solved at the non-expert level. It shows that AI's effects on writing from the reader side are distinct from those on the production (writer) side. Detection technology cannot resolve this dynamic because the social function of accusations is increasingly to perform social gatekeeping and in-group signaling as opposed to identifying AI-generated writing.

Related papers

• Beyond "Made with AI": Visualizing Provenance Density to Mitigate the Transparency Penalty [28.22285512950749]
  generative AI makes polished prose cheap to produce, users can no longer rely on fluency as a proxy for truth.<n>We call this failure mode the Fluency Trap: users trust fluent hallucinations while also discounting accurate content once it is disclosed as AI-generated.<n>We propose Provenance Density, an evidence-visualization interface that shows the density of verified claims in a text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T07:18:42Z)
• Warning labels shift perceptions of sycophantic AI, but not its influence [63.79516339973759]
  We test whether warning labels mitigate sycophancy's influence.<n>Labeling the system as sycophantic (...may agree with you and validate you even when you are wrong...'') does shift users' perceptions.<n>But it does not reliably reduce sycophancy's influence on users' self-perceived rightness or their willingness to repair the conflict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T11:01:45Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• Can Humans Detect AI? Mining Textual Signals of AI-Assisted Writing Under Varying Scrutiny Conditions [0.0]
  This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference.<n>In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work.<n>Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-25T23:34:44Z)
• The Impact of AI-Generated Text on the Internet [0.7024533257206088]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T16:06:14Z)
• When AI companions become witty: Can human brain recognize AI-generated irony? [2.859021383061256]
  This study investigates whether people adopt the intentional stance, attributing mental states to explain behavior,toward AI during irony comprehension.<n>We compared behavioral and neural responses to ironic statements from AI versus human sources.<n>Results demonstrate that people do not fully adopt the intentional stance toward AI-generated irony.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T05:15:00Z)
• Readers Prefer Outputs of AI Trained on Copyrighted Books over Expert Human Writers [8.031052360107092]
  It's unclear if frontier AI models can generate high quality literary text while emulating authors' styles.<n>We compare MFA-trained expert writers with three frontier AI models: ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini in writing up to 450 word excerpts emulating 50 award-winning authors' diverse styles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-15T17:51:58Z)
• ConspirED: A Dataset for Cognitive Traits of Conspiracy Theories and Large Language Model Safety [87.90209836101353]
  ConspirED is the first dataset of conspiratorial content annotated for general cognitive traits.<n>We develop computational models that identify conspiratorial traits and determine dominant traits in text excerpts.<n>We evaluate large language/reasoning model (LLM/LRM) robustness to conspiratorial inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:39:25Z)
• 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)
• Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? [50.95804851595018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) perform impressively well in various applications.<n>The potential for misuse of these models in activities such as plagiarism, generating fake news, and spamming has raised concern about their responsible use.<n>We stress-test the robustness of these AI text detectors in the presence of an attacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:53:19Z)

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.