REVIEW 2 cited by
Do You Trust ChatGPT? -- Perceived Credibility of Human and AI-Generated Content
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This paper examines how individuals perceive the credibility of content originating from human authors versus content generated by large language models, like the GPT language model family that powers ChatGPT, in different user interface versions. Surprisingly, our results demonstrate that regardless of the user interface presentation, participants tend to attribute similar levels of credibility. While participants also do not report any different perceptions of competence and trustworthiness between human and AI-generated content, they rate AI-generated content as being clearer and more engaging. The findings from this study serve as a call for a more discerning approach to evaluating information sources, encouraging users to exercise caution and critical thinking when engaging with content generated by AI systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Exploring User Security and Privacy Attitudes and Concerns Toward the Use of General-Purpose LLM Chatbots for Mental Health
Many users of general-purpose LLM chatbots for mental health misunderstand how their data is protected, conflating human-like empathy with accountability and undervaluing emotional disclosures as a privacy risk.
-
Mind the Gap! Choice Independence in Using Multilingual LLMs for Persuasive Co-Writing Tasks in Different Languages
Users who first used a Spanish AI writing assistant subsequently used the English AI writing assistant less, suggesting a spillover that violates choice independence.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.