Human-written Text Research Articles

Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet)

We assessed 19,000 scientific introductions to measure the level of undisclosed use of ChatGPT in scientific papers published in 2023 and early 2024. We applied a “stylistics” approach that has previously been shown to be effective at differentiating AI-generated text from human-written text in a variety of venues. Ten different MDPI journals were selected for this study, and the rate of use of undisclosed AI writing in these journals was fairly consistent across the journals. We estimate that ChatGPT was used for writing or significant editing in about 1 to 3% of the introductions tested. This analysis is the first systematic study of detecting undisclosed ChatGPT in published manuscripts in cases where obvious indicators, such as phrases like “regenerate response”, are not present. The work demonstrates that generative AI is not polluting mainstream journals to any appreciable extent and that the overwhelming majority of scientists remain hesitant to embrace this tool for late-stage writing and editing.

A comparative study of thematic choices and thematic progression patterns in human-written and AI-generated texts

By adopting systemic functional grammar as the theoretical framework, the present research investigates the choices of the textual, the interpersonal, the topical Themes, and thematic progression patterns in human-written and AI-generated argumentative texts to examine how the human author and the robot organize the clause and text. The findings suggest that human-written and AI-generated texts differ significantly in using the subtypes of textual, interpersonal, and marked topical Themes. In terms of textual Themes, the machine tends to use more concession signals to repeat information that has been stated earlier, adopt fewer condition signals since the robot may be less likely to imagine possible or impossible situations, and repetitively rely on clause-initial conjunctive adjuncts of addition to extend the clause to the previous text. As for interpersonal Themes, the robot seldom adopts modal adjuncts or modal verbal operators as interpersonal Themes, which may suggest its lack of awareness of interaction with the reader and its avoidance of expressing its viewpoints in a typical or congruent way. Regarding topical Themes, the less use of marked themes in AI-generated texts demonstrates that AI may less carefully plan the development of the text to foreground the setting or construct coherent text. Considering thematic progression patterns, the frequent use of the constant pattern in AI-generated texts prevents the text from development and makes the text redundant and simplistic like a list of ideas.

Evaluating Generative AI's Ability to Identify Cancer Subtypes in Publicly Available Structured Genetic Datasets.

Genetic data play a crucial role in diagnosing and treating various diseases, reflecting a growing imperative to integrate these data into clinical care. However, significant barriers such as the structure of electronic health records (EHRs), insurance costs for genetic testing, and the interpretability of genetic results impede this integration. This paper explores solutions to these challenges by combining recent technological advances with informatics and data science, focusing on the diagnostic potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in cancer research. AI has historically been applied in medical research with limited success, but recent developments have led to the emergence of large language models (LLMs). These transformer-based generative AI models, trained on vast datasets, offer significant potential for genetic and genomic analyses. However, their effectiveness is constrained by their training on predominantly human-written text rather than comprehensive, structured genetic datasets. This study reevaluates the capabilities of LLMs, specifically GPT models, in performing supervised prediction tasks using structured gene expression data. By comparing GPT models with traditional machine learning approaches, we assess their effectiveness in predicting cancer subtypes, demonstrating the potential of AI models to analyze real-world genetic data for generating real-world evidence.

Effective and Imperceptible Adversarial Textual Attack Via Multi-objectivization

The field of adversarial textual attack has significantly grown over the past few years, where the commonly considered objective is to craft adversarial examples (AEs) that can successfully fool the target model. However, the imperceptibility of attacks, which is also essential for practical attackers, is often left out by previous studies. In consequence, the crafted AEs tend to have obvious structural and semantic differences from the original human-written text, making them easily perceptible. In this work, we advocate leveraging multi-objectivization to address such an issue. Specifically, we reformulate the problem of crafting AEs as a multi-objective optimization problem, where the attack imperceptibility is considered as an auxiliary objective. Then, we propose a simple yet effective evolutionary algorithm, dubbed HydraText, to solve this problem. HydraText can be effectively applied to both score-based and decision-based attack settings. Exhaustive experiments involving 44,237 instances demonstrate that HydraText consistently achieves competitive attack success rates and better attack imperceptibility than the recently proposed attack approaches. A human evaluation study also shows that the AEs crafted by HydraText are more indistinguishable from human-written text. Finally, these AEs exhibit good transferability and can bring notable robustness improvement to the target model by adversarial training.

Applying ChatGPT to writing scientific articles on the use of telemedicine: Opportunities and limitations

In the rapidly evolving world of technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly integrated into various aspects of our lives, including health-care, education, finance, transportation, and entertainment. Notably, AI has also impacted the writing of textual works such as scientific papers, professional opinions, and educational texts. This study investigates the application of OpenAI’s ChatGPT language model in writing scientific articles on telemedicine, specifically in the areas of cardiology, oncology, and remote medical examination. The study uses ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 to create articles using three different prompts. The created articles were evaluated based on the reliability of the cited literature references, the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the sources were published, and the relevance of the sources. The sources were divided into three categories: reliable, semi-reliable, and completely fictitious. The results demonstrate that ChatGPT can produce semantically coherent and error-free texts indistinguishable from human-written texts. However, the reliability of literary references varies significantly. ChatGPT 4, benefitting from its larger training dataset, generates a higher percentage of reliable sources compared to ChatGPT 3.5. The IF analysis indicates the prevalence of high-impact journals among reliable sources, which emphasizes the effectiveness of the model in selecting quality references. The study highlights the need for caution when using AI to write scientific articles due to the potential for biased, unverified, and inaccurate information. It is important to critically evaluate and vet AI-generated content. In addition, the study emphasizes that the correct use of AI and thoughtful drafting of prompts can improve the efficiency and quality of scientific papers. Future advancements in AI technology are expected to further minimize errors and biases.

Survey for Detecting AI-generated Content

In large language models (LLMs) field, the rapid advancements have significantly improved text generation, which has blured the distinction between AI-generated and human-written texts. These developments have sparked concerns about potential risks, such as disseminating fake information or engaging in academic cheating. As the responsible use of LLMs becomes imperative, the detection of AI-generated content has become a crucial task. Most existing surveys on AI-generated text (AIGT) Detection have analysed the detection approaches from a computational perspective, with less attention to linguistic aspects. This survey seeks to provide a fresh perspective to drive progress in the area of LLM-generated text detection. Futhermore, in order to make the assessment more explainable, we emphasize the great importence of leveraging specific parameters or metrics to linguistically evaluate the candidate text.

A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring.

Investigate the use of advanced natural language processing models to streamline the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts. For this purpose, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly texts. Our AI-based revision workflow employs a prompt generator that incorporates manuscript metadata into templates, generating section-specific instructions for the language model. The model then generates revised versions of each paragraph for human authors to review. We evaluated this methodology through 5 case studies of existing manuscripts, including the revision of this manuscript. Our results indicate that these models, despite some limitations, can grasp complex academic concepts and enhance text quality. All changes to the manuscript are tracked using a version control system, ensuring transparency in distinguishing between human- and machine-generated text. Given the significant time researchers invest in crafting prose, incorporating large language models into the scholarly writing process can significantly improve the type of knowledge work performed by academics. Our approach also enables scholars to concentrate on critical aspects of their work, such as the novelty of their ideas, while automating tedious tasks like adhering to specific writing styles. Although the use of AI-assisted tools in scientific authoring is controversial, our approach, which focuses on revising human-written text and provides change-tracking transparency, can mitigate concerns regarding AI's role in scientific writing.

On the Unexpected Abilities of Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of displaying a wide range of abilities that are not directly connected with the task for which they are trained: predicting the next words of human-written texts. In this article, I review recent research investigating the cognitive abilities developed by LLMs and their relation to human cognition. I discuss the nature of the indirect process that leads to the acquisition of these cognitive abilities, their relation to other indirect processes, and the implications for the acquisition of integrated abilities. Moreover, I propose the factors that enable the development of abilities that are related only very indirectly to the proximal objective of the training task. Finally, I discuss whether the full set of capabilities that LLMs could possibly develop is predictable.

Identifying ChatGPT-written Patient Education Materials Using Text Analysis and Readability.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based text generators such as Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) have come into the forefront of modern medicine. Given the similarity between AI-generated and human-composed text, tools need to be developed to quickly differentiate the two. Previous work has shown that simple grammatical analysis can reliably differentiate AI-generated text from human-written text. In this study, ChatGPT was used to generate 25 articles related to obstetric topics similar to those made by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). All articles were geared towards patient education. These AI-generated articles were then analyzed for their readability and grammar using validated scoring systems and compared to real articles from ACOG. Characteristics of the 25 AI-generated articles included fewer overall characters than original articles (mean 3,066 vs. 7,426; p < 0.0001), a greater average word length (mean 5.3 vs. 4.8; p < 0.0001), and a lower Flesch-Kincaid score (mean 46 vs. 59; p < 0.0001). With this knowledge, a new scoring system was develop to score articles based on their Flesch-Kincaid readability score, number of total characters, and average word length. This novel scoring system was tested on 17 new AI-generated articles related to obstetrics and 7 articles from ACOG, and was able to differentiate between AI-generated articles and human-written articles with a sensitivity of 94.1% and specificity of 100% (Area Under the Curve [AUC] 0.99). As ChatGPT is more widely integrated into medicine, it will be important for health care stakeholders to have tools to separate originally written documents from those generated by AI. While more robust analyses may be required to determine the authenticity of articles written by complex AI technology in the future, simple grammatical analysis can accurately characterize current AI-generated texts with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity. · More tools are needed to identify AI-generated text in obstetrics, for both doctors and patients.. · Grammatical analysis is quick and easily done.. · Grammatical analysis is a feasible and accurate way to identify AI-generated text..

Towards an understanding and explanation for mixed-initiative artificial scientific text detection

Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity in various fields for their exceptional capability of generating human-like text. Their potential misuse has raised social concerns about plagiarism in academic contexts. However, effective artificial scientific text detection is a non-trivial task due to several challenges, including (1) the lack of a clear understanding of the differences between machine-generated and human-written scientific text, (2) the poor generalization performance of existing methods caused by out-of-distribution issues, and (3) the limited support for human-machine collaboration with sufficient interpretability during the detection process. In this paper, we first identify the critical distinctions between machine-generated and human-written scientific text through a quantitative experiment. Then, we propose a mixed-initiative workflow that combines human experts’ prior knowledge with machine intelligence, along with a visual analytics system to facilitate efficient and trustworthy scientific text detection. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through two case studies and a controlled user study. We also provide design implications for interactive artificial text detection tools in high-stakes decision-making scenarios.

Fighting Fire with Fire: Can ChatGPT Detect AI-generated Text?

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly being used for various use cases, including text content generation at scale. Although detection methods for such AI-generated text exist already, we investigate ChatGPT's performance as a detector on such AI-generated text, inspired by works that use ChatGPT as a data labeler or annotator. We evaluate the zeroshot performance of ChatGPT in the task of human-written vs. AI-generated text detection, and perform experiments on publicly available datasets. We empirically investigate if ChatGPT is symmetrically effective in detecting AI-generated or human-written text. Our findings provide insight on how ChatGPT and similar LLMs may be leveraged in automated detection pipelines by simply focusing on solving a specific aspect of the problem and deriving the rest from that solution. All code and data is available at https://github.com/AmritaBh/ChatGPT-as-Detector.

OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examples

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved human-level fluency in text generation, making it difficult to distinguish between human-written and LLM-generated texts. This poses a growing risk of misuse of LLMs and demands the development of detectors to identify LLM-generated texts. However, existing detectors lack robustness against attacks: they degrade detection accuracy by simply paraphrasing LLM-generated texts. Furthermore, a malicious user might attempt to deliberately evade the detectors based on detection results, but this has not been assumed in previous studies. In this paper, we propose OUTFOX, a framework that improves the robustness of LLM-generated-text detectors by allowing both the detector and the attacker to consider each other's output. In this framework, the attacker uses the detector's prediction labels as examples for in-context learning and adversarially generates essays that are harder to detect, while the detector uses the adversarially generated essays as examples for in-context learning to learn to detect essays from a strong attacker. Experiments in the domain of student essays show that the proposed detector improves the detection performance on the attacker-generated texts by up to +41.3 points F1-score. Furthermore, the proposed detector shows a state-of-the-art detection performance: up to 96.9 points F1-score, beating existing detectors on non-attacked texts. Finally, the proposed attacker drastically degrades the performance of detectors by up to -57.0 points F1-score, massively outperforming the baseline paraphrasing method for evading detection.

AI-Generated Text Detector for Arabic Language Using Encoder-Based Transformer Architecture

The effectiveness of existing AI detectors is notably hampered when processing Arabic texts. This study introduces a novel AI text classifier designed specifically for Arabic, tackling the distinct challenges inherent in processing this language. A particular focus is placed on accurately recognizing human-written texts (HWTs), an area where existing AI detectors have demonstrated significant limitations. To achieve this goal, this paper utilized and fine-tuned two Transformer-based models, AraELECTRA and XLM-R, by training them on two distinct datasets: a large dataset comprising 43,958 examples and a custom dataset with 3078 examples that contain HWT and AI-generated texts (AIGTs) from various sources, including ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT-4, and BARD. The proposed architecture is adaptable to any language, but this work evaluates these models’ efficiency in recognizing HWTs versus AIGTs in Arabic as an example of Semitic languages. The performance of the proposed models has been compared against the two prominent existing AI detectors, GPTZero and OpenAI Text Classifier, particularly on the AIRABIC benchmark dataset. The results reveal that the proposed classifiers outperform both GPTZero and OpenAI Text Classifier with 81% accuracy compared to 63% and 50% for GPTZero and OpenAI Text Classifier, respectively. Furthermore, integrating a Dediacritization Layer prior to the classification model demonstrated a significant enhancement in the detection accuracy of both HWTs and AIGTs. This Dediacritization step markedly improved the classification accuracy, elevating it from 81% to as high as 99% and, in some instances, even achieving 100%.

Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View

Is ChatGPT an author? Given its capacity to generate something that reads like human-written text in response to prompts, it might seem natural to ascribe authorship to ChatGPT. However, we argue that ChatGPT is not an author. ChatGPT fails to meet the criteria of authorship because it lacks the ability to perform illocutionary speech acts such as promising or asserting, lacks the fitting mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention, and cannot take responsibility for the texts it produces. Three perspectives are compared: liberalism (which ascribes authorship to ChatGPT), conservatism (which denies ChatGPT's authorship for normative and metaphysical reasons), and moderatism (which treats ChatGPT as if it possesses authorship without committing to the existence of mental states like knowledge, belief, or intention). We conclude that conservatism provides a more nuanced understanding of authorship in AI than liberalism and moderatism, without denying the significant potential, influence, or utility of AI technologies such as ChatGPT.

Human-Written vs AI-Generated Texts in Orthopedic Academic Literature: Comparative Qualitative Analysis.

As large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into different aspects of health care, questions about the implications for medical academic literature have begun to emerge. Key aspects such as authenticity in academic writing are at stake with artificial intelligence (AI) generating highly linguistically accurate and grammatically sound texts. The objective of this study is to compare human-written with AI-generated scientific literature in orthopedics and sports medicine. Five original abstracts were selected from the PubMed database. These abstracts were subsequently rewritten with the assistance of 2 LLMs with different degrees of proficiency. Subsequently, researchers with varying degrees of expertise and with different areas of specialization were asked to rank the abstracts according to linguistic and methodological parameters. Finally, researchers had to classify the articles as AI generated or human written. Neither the researchers nor the AI-detection software could successfully identify the AI-generated texts. Furthermore, the criteria previously suggested in the literature did not correlate with whether the researchers deemed a text to be AI generated or whether they judged the article correctly based on these parameters. The primary finding of this study was that researchers were unable to distinguish between LLM-generated and human-written texts. However, due to the small sample size, it is not possible to generalize the results of this study. As is the case with any tool used in academic research, the potential to cause harm can be mitigated by relying on the transparency and integrity of the researchers. With scientific integrity at stake, further research with a similar study design should be conducted to determine the magnitude of this issue.

Reviewing the performance of AI detection tools in differentiating between AI-generated and human-written texts: A literature and integrative hybrid review

Reviewing the performance of AI detection tools in differentiating between AI-generated and human-written texts: A literature and integrative hybrid review

Between human and AI: assessing the reliability of AI text detection tools

Objective Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4 have raised critical questions regarding their distinguishability from human-generated content. In this research, we evaluated the effectiveness of online detection tools in identifying ChatGPT-4 vs human-written text. Methods A two texts produced by ChatGPT-4 using differing prompts and one text created by a human author were analytically assessed using the following online detection tools: GPTZero, ZeroGPT, Writer ACD, and Originality. Results The findings revealed a notable variance in the detection capabilities of the employed detection tools. GPTZero and ZeroGPT exhibited inconsistent assessments regarding the AI-origin of the texts. Writer ACD predominantly identified texts as human-written, whereas Originality consistently recognized the AI-generated content in both samples from ChatGPT-4. This highlights Originality’s enhanced sensitivity to patterns characteristic of AI-generated text. Conclusion The study demonstrates that while automatic detection tools may discern texts generated by ChatGPT-4 significant variability exists in their accuracy. Undoubtedly, there is an urgent need for advanced detection tools to ensure the authenticity and integrity of content, especially in scientific and academic research. However, our findings underscore an urgent need for more refined detection methodologies to prevent the misdetection of human-written content as AI-generated and vice versa.

Automated football match reports as models of textuality

Abstract This paper deals with automated football match reports as a common genre of automated journalism. Based on a corpus of automated and human-written reports (n = 1,302) on the same set of matches and with reference to linguistic concepts of text and textuality, the textual properties of these texts are analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The analysis is based on the idea that the task of text generation can be described as the task of automatically selecting cues of textuality such as connectives or signals of thematic relatedness. The results show that automated and human-written texts differ significantly in the use of these cues, particularly in the use of linguistic means for creating evaluation and contrast, and thus allow to trace in detail, how these cues contribute to cohesion, coherence and narrative qualities. Different from computational linguistic approaches focused on optimizing text generation algorithms, this paper proposes to use automated texts, which are to some extent imperfect, as models of textuality that through their imperfection can say something about the nature of texts in general. The paper thus contributes to the field of (mostly communication studies) research on automated journalism in which the texts themselves are rarely investigated.

Differentiating ChatGPT-Generated and Human-Written Medical Texts: Quantitative Study.

Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are capable of generating grammatically perfect and human-like text content, and a large number of ChatGPT-generated texts have appeared on the internet. However, medical texts, such as clinical notes and diagnoses, require rigorous validation, and erroneous medical content generated by ChatGPT could potentially lead to disinformation that poses significant harm to health care and the general public. This study is among the first on responsible artificial intelligence-generated content in medicine. We focus on analyzing the differences between medical texts written by human experts and those generated by ChatGPT and designing machine learning workflows to effectively detect and differentiate medical texts generated by ChatGPT. We first constructed a suite of data sets containing medical texts written by human experts and generated by ChatGPT. We analyzed the linguistic features of these 2 types of content and uncovered differences in vocabulary, parts-of-speech, dependency, sentiment, perplexity, and other aspects. Finally, we designed and implemented machine learning methods to detect medical text generated by ChatGPT. The data and code used in this paper are published on GitHub. Medical texts written by humans were more concrete, more diverse, and typically contained more useful information, while medical texts generated by ChatGPT paid more attention to fluency and logic and usually expressed general terminologies rather than effective information specific to the context of the problem. A bidirectional encoder representations from transformers-based model effectively detected medical texts generated by ChatGPT, and the F1 score exceeded 95%. Although text generated by ChatGPT is grammatically perfect and human-like, the linguistic characteristics of generated medical texts were different from those written by human experts. Medical text generated by ChatGPT could be effectively detected by the proposed machine learning algorithms. This study provides a pathway toward trustworthy and accountable use of large language models in medicine.

Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text

Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for AI-generated text and evaluates them based on accuracy and error type analysis. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. The research covers 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems (Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck) that are widely used in the academic setting. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. First, it summarises up-to-date similar scientific and non-scientific efforts in the field. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings.