REVIEW 7 cited by
Combating Misinformation in the Age of LLMs: Opportunities and Challenges
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
Combating Misinformation in the Age of LLMs: Opportunities and Challenges
read the original abstract
Misinformation such as fake news and rumors is a serious threat on information ecosystems and public trust. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has great potential to reshape the landscape of combating misinformation. Generally, LLMs can be a double-edged sword in the fight. On the one hand, LLMs bring promising opportunities for combating misinformation due to their profound world knowledge and strong reasoning abilities. Thus, one emergent question is: how to utilize LLMs to combat misinformation? On the other hand, the critical challenge is that LLMs can be easily leveraged to generate deceptive misinformation at scale. Then, another important question is: how to combat LLM-generated misinformation? In this paper, we first systematically review the history of combating misinformation before the advent of LLMs. Then we illustrate the current efforts and present an outlook for these two fundamental questions respectively. The goal of this survey paper is to facilitate the progress of utilizing LLMs for fighting misinformation and call for interdisciplinary efforts from different stakeholders for combating LLM-generated misinformation.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
Can Humans Tell? A Dual-Axis Study of Human Perception of LLM-Generated News
Humans cannot reliably distinguish LLM-generated news from human-written news across multiple models, with domain expertise providing only modest help and fatigue reducing accuracy over time.
-
ReFACT: A Benchmark for Scientific Confabulation Detection with Positional Error Annotations
ReFACT benchmark reveals LLMs show a persistent salient distractor failure mode where 61% of incorrect error span predictions are semantically unrelated to actual errors, persisting across model sizes, and comparative...
-
Persuasion with Large Language Models: A Survey of Empirical Evidence, Study Methodologies, and Ethical Implications
LLM-based persuasion systems frequently match or exceed human effectiveness across domains, with key influences from interaction style, model scale, prompt design, and personalization, while posing risks to informatio...
-
TrustLLM: Trustworthiness in Large Language Models
TrustLLM defines eight trustworthiness principles, creates a six-dimension benchmark, and evaluates 16 LLMs showing proprietary models generally lead but some open-source ones are close while over-calibration can hurt...
-
A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions
The paper surveys hallucination in LLMs with an innovative taxonomy, factors, detection methods, benchmarks, mitigation strategies, and open research directions.
-
Calibrated Selective Fact-Checking via Evidence Chain Evaluation
A tool-using LLM fact-checker that abstains on 6 of 95 claims reaches 97.8% accuracy on answered claims, but a simpler search baseline remains more accurate and better calibrated.
-
AI Safety Landscape for Large Language Models: Taxonomy, State-of-the-art, and Future Directions
The paper introduces a taxonomy of AI safety for LLMs organized into Trustworthy AI, Responsible AI, and Safe AI perspectives, accompanied by a review of state-of-the-art methods, challenges, and future directions.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.