Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversations

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

arxiv 2401.16587 v3 pith:RV6BGX5F submitted 2024-01-29 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY
keywords humanconversationslinguisticdialoguesaffectchatgptchatgpt-generatedresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This study explores linguistic differences between human and LLM-generated dialogues, using 19.5K dialogues generated by ChatGPT-3.5 as a companion to the EmpathicDialogues dataset. The research employs Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analysis, comparing ChatGPT-generated conversations with human conversations across 118 linguistic categories. Results show greater variability and authenticity in human dialogues, but ChatGPT excels in categories such as social processes, analytical style, cognition, attentional focus, and positive emotional tone, reinforcing recent findings of LLMs being "more human than human." However, no significant difference was found in positive or negative affect between ChatGPT and human dialogues. Classifier analysis of dialogue embeddings indicates implicit coding of the valence of affect despite no explicit mention of affect in the conversations. The research also contributes a novel, companion ChatGPT-generated dataset of conversations between two independent chatbots, which were designed to replicate a corpus of human conversations available for open access and used widely in AI research on language modeling. Our findings enhance understanding of ChatGPT's linguistic capabilities and inform ongoing efforts to distinguish between human and LLM-generated text, which is critical in detecting AI-generated fakes, misinformation, and disinformation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Comparing LLM-generated and human-authored news text using formal syntactic theory

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Using HPSG grammar analysis, the authors find that LLM-generated NYT-style text has a different syntactic and lexical distribution from human text, with LLMs more similar to each other than to humans.

Pith tools