Comparing the Willingness to Share for Human-generated vs. AI-generated Fake News

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) presents large risks for society when it is used to create fake news. A crucial factor for fake news to go viral on social media is that users share such content. Here, we aim to shed light on the sharing behavior of users across human-generated vs. AI-generated fake news. Specifically, we study: (1) What is the perceived veracity of human-generated fake news vs. AI-generated fake news? (2) What is the user's willingness to share human-generated fake news vs. AI-generated fake news on social media? (3) What socio-economic characteristics let users fall for AI-generated fake news? To this end, we conducted a pre-registered, online experiment with N= 988 subjects and 20 fake news from the COVID-19 pandemic generated by GPT-4 vs. humans. Our findings show that AI-generated fake news is perceived as less accurate than human-generated fake news, but both tend to be shared equally. Further, several socio-economic factors explain who falls for AI-generated fake news.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2024-11-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3687028
Citations
16
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
18.11

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing the Willingness to Share for Human-generated vs. AI-generated Fake News

Amirsiavosh Bashardoust, Yash Raj Shrestha, Stefan Feuerriegel
16 citations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Misinformation and Its Impacts
18.11
article

Comparing the Willingness to Share for Human-generated vs. AI-generated Fake News

Amirsiavosh Bashardoust, Yash Raj Shrestha, Stefan Feuerriegel
article en
16 citations

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) presents large risks for society when it is used to create fake news. A crucial factor for fake news to go viral on social media is that users share such content. Here, we aim to shed light on the sharing behavior of users across human-generated vs. AI-generated fake news. Specifically, we study: (1) What is the perceived veracity of human-generated fake news vs. AI-generated fake news? (2) What is the user's willingness to share human-generated fake news vs. AI-generated fake news on social media? (3) What socio-economic characteristics let users fall for AI-generated fake news? To this end, we conducted a pre-registered, online experiment with N= 988 subjects and 20 fake news from the COVID-19 pandemic generated by GPT-4 vs. humans. Our findings show that AI-generated fake news is perceived as less accurate than human-generated fake news, but both tend to be shared equally. Further, several socio-economic factors explain who falls for AI-generated fake news.

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionVol. 8(CSCW2)
Munich Center for Machine Learning, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), University of Lausanne (CH)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
18.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.