Search

Generative AI tools exemplified by ChatGPT are becoming a new reality. This study is motivated by the premise that "AI generated content may exhibit a distinctive behavior that can be separated from scientific articles". In this study, we show how articles can be generated using means of prompt engineering for various diseases and conditions. We then show how we tested this premise in two phases and prove its validity. Subsequently, we introduce xFakeSci, a novel learning algorithm, that is capable of distinguishing ChatGPT-generated articles from publications produced by scientists. The algorithm is trained using network models driven from both sources. To mitigate overfitting issues, we incorporated a calibration step that is built upon data-driven heuristics, including proximity and ratios. Specifically, from a total of a 3952 fake articles for three different medical conditions, the algorithm was trained using only 100 articles, but calibrated using folds of 100 articles. As for the classification step, it was performed using 300 articles per condition. The actual label steps took place against an equal mix of 50 generated articles and 50 authentic PubMed abstracts. The testing also spanned publication periods from 2010 to 2024 and encompassed research on three distinct diseases: cancer, depression, and Alzheimer's. Further, we evaluated the accuracy of the xFakeSci algorithm against some of the classical data mining algorithms (e.g., Support Vector Machines, Regression, and Naive Bayes). The xFakeSci algorithm achieved F1 scores ranging from 80 to 94%, outperforming common data mining algorithms, which scored F1 values between 38 and 52%. We attribute the noticeable difference to the introduction of calibration and a proximity distance heuristic, which underscores this promising performance. Indeed, the prediction of fake science generated by ChatGPT presents a considerable challenge. Nonetheless, the introduction of the xFakeSci algorithm is a significant step on the way to combating fake science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform our lives and work through the content they generate, known as AI-Generated Content (AIGC). To harness this transformation, we need to understand the limitations of LLMs. Here, we investigate the bias of AIGC produced by seven representative LLMs, including ChatGPT and LLaMA. We collect news articles from The New York Times and Reuters, both known for their dedication to provide unbiased news. We then apply each examined LLM to generate news content with headlines of these news articles as prompts, and evaluate the gender and racial biases of the AIGC produced by the LLM by comparing the AIGC and the original news articles. We further analyze the gender bias of each LLM under biased prompts by adding gender-biased messages to prompts constructed from these news headlines. Our study reveals that the AIGC produced by each examined LLM demonstrates substantial gender and racial biases. Moreover, the AIGC generated by each LLM exhibits notable discrimination against females and individuals of the Black race. Among the LLMs, the AIGC generated by ChatGPT demonstrates the lowest level of bias, and ChatGPT is the sole model capable of declining content generation when provided with biased prompts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Matching the language or content of a message to the psychological profile of its recipient (known as "personalized persuasion") is widely considered to be one of the most effective messaging strategies. We demonstrate that the rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, could accelerate this influence by making personalized persuasion scalable. Across four studies (consisting of seven sub-studies; total N = 1788), we show that personalized messages crafted by ChatGPT exhibit significantly more influence than non-personalized messages. This was true across different domains of persuasion (e.g., marketing of consumer products, political appeals for climate action), psychological profiles (e.g., personality traits, political ideology, moral foundations), and when only providing the LLM with a single, short prompt naming or describing the targeted psychological dimension. Thus, our findings are among the first to demonstrate the potential for LLMs to automate, and thereby scale, the use of personalized persuasion in ways that enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. We discuss the implications for researchers, practitioners, and the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]