Online reviews serve as a guide for consumer choice. With advancements in large language models (LLMs) and generative AI, the fast and inexpensive creation of human-like text may threaten the feedback function of online reviews if neither readers nor platforms can differentiate between human-written and AI-generated content. In two experiments, we found that humans cannot recognize AI-written reviews. Even with monetary incentives for accuracy, both Type I and Type II errors were common: human reviews were often mistaken for AI-generated reviews, and even more frequently, AI-generated reviews were mistaken for human reviews. This held true across various ratings, emotional tones, review lengths, and participants’ genders, education levels, and AI expertise. Younger participants were somewhat better at distinguishing between human and AI reviews. An additional study revealed that current AI detectors were also fooled by AI-generated reviews. We discuss the implications of our findings on trust erosion, manipulation, regulation, consumer behavior, AI detection, market structure, innovation, and review platforms.
“Interestingly, this effect cannot be explained by differences in participants’ experience with generative AI models, as that variable is insignificant in the mode”
When predictors are correlated, which is most likely the case here, this analysis cannot separately estimate their effects. The software will end up splitting the total effect size between the two predictors. Without describing collineariry between predictors, it’s not possible here to judge whether experience with AI is truly unimportant or the analysis is merely incapable of spotting the effect.
As for eroding confidence in reviews, this will make it worse, but I already put next to no stock in user reviews anymore. You don’t need AI to make a good human-like review that lies about a product, and there are plenty of those around.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
“Interestingly, this effect cannot be explained by differences in participants’ experience with generative AI models, as that variable is insignificant in the mode”
When predictors are correlated, which is most likely the case here, this analysis cannot separately estimate their effects. The software will end up splitting the total effect size between the two predictors. Without describing collineariry between predictors, it’s not possible here to judge whether experience with AI is truly unimportant or the analysis is merely incapable of spotting the effect.
As for eroding confidence in reviews, this will make it worse, but I already put next to no stock in user reviews anymore. You don’t need AI to make a good human-like review that lies about a product, and there are plenty of those around.