[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/itse23/277971.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

AI-generated lemons: a sour outlook for content producers?

Author

Listed:
  • Howell, Bronwyn E.
  • Potgieter, Petrus H.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques for natural language processing have made dramatic advances in the past few years (Lin 2023). Thunström & Steingrimsson (2022) demonstrated that the present generation of AI text engines are even able to write low-level scientific pieces about themselves, with relatively minimal prompting, whereas Goyal et al. (2022) show how good general-purpose AI language engines are at summarizing news articles. There is however a downside to all of this progress. Bontridder & Poullet (2021) point out how inexpensive it has become to generate deepfake videos and synthetic voice recordings. Kreps et al. (2022) look at AI generated text and find that "individuals are largely incapable of distinguishing between AI- and human-generated text". Illia et al. (2023) point to three ethical challenges raised by automated text generation that is difficult to distinguish from human writing: 1. facilitation of mass manipulation and disinformation; 2. a lowest denominator problem where a mass of low-quality but incredibly cheap text, crowds out higher-quality discourse; and 3. the suppression of direct communication between stakeholders and an attendant drop in the levels of trust. Our focus is mainly on (2) and we examine the institutional consequences that may arise in two specific sectors currently already facing challenges from AI-generated text: scientific journals and social media platforms. Drawing on the body of learning from institutional economics regarding responses to uncertainties in the veracity of information, it also proposes some elementary remedies that may prove helpful in navigating through the anticipated challenges. Distinguishing genuinely human-authored content from machine-generated text will likely be more easily done using a credible signal of the authenticity of the content creator. This is a variation of Akerlof's (1970) famous "market for lemons" problem. This paper uses an inductive approach to examine sections of the content industry that are likely to be particularly relevant to "market for lemons" substitution, referring to the framework of Giannakas & Fulton (2020).

Suggested Citation

  • Howell, Bronwyn E. & Potgieter, Petrus H., 2023. "AI-generated lemons: a sour outlook for content producers?," 32nd European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2023: Realising the digital decade in the European Union – Easier said than done? 277971, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:itse23:277971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/277971/1/Howell-Potgieter.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    2. Jennifer Byrne, 2019. "We need to talk about systematic fraud," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7742), pages 9-9, February.
    3. Holly Else, 2023. "Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7944), pages 423-423, January.
    4. Benoît Dupont & Anne-Marie Côté & Claire Savine & David Décary-Hétu, 2016. "The ecology of trust among hackers," Global Crime, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 129-151, April.
    5. Guillaume Cabanac & Cyril Labbé, 2021. "Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(12), pages 1461-1476, December.
    6. Adam Day, 2022. "Exploratory analysis of text duplication in peer-review reveals peer-review fraud and paper mills," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5965-5987, October.
    7. Alessandro Checco & Lorenzo Bracciale & Pierpaolo Loreti & Stephen Pinfield & Giuseppe Bianchi, 2021. "AI-assisted peer review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Chengcheng Shao & Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia & Onur Varol & Kai-Cheng Yang & Alessandro Flammini & Filippo Menczer, 2018. "The spread of low-credibility content by social bots," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
    10. Vanja Pupovac, 2021. "The frequency of plagiarism identified by text-matching software in scientific articles: a systematic review and meta-analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8981-9003, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edisa Lozić & Benjamin Štular, 2023. "Fluent but Not Factual: A Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT and Other AI Chatbots’ Proficiency and Originality in Scientific Writing for Humanities," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-26, October.
    2. Orhan, Mehmet A. & van Rossenberg, Yvonne & Bal, P. Matthijs, 2024. "Authorship inequality and elite dominance in management and organizational research: A review of six decades," OSF Preprints tzx92, Center for Open Science.
    3. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    4. Arpan Kumar Kar & P. S. Varsha & Shivakami Rajan, 2023. "Unravelling the Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in Industrial Applications: A Review of Scientific and Grey Literature," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(4), pages 659-689, December.
    5. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    6. Francois, Patrick, 2000. "'Public service motivation' as an argument for government provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 275-299, November.
    7. John Higgins & Tarun Sabarwal, 2023. "Control and spread of contagion in networks with global effects," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 25(6), pages 1149-1187, December.
    8. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    9. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    10. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    11. Xia, Huosong & Wang, Yuan & Zhang, Justin Zuopeng & Zheng, Leven J. & Kamal, Muhammad Mustafa & Arya, Varsha, 2023. "COVID-19 fake news detection: A hybrid CNN-BiLSTM-AM model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    12. André Luis Araujo da Fonseca & Paula Castro Pires de Souza Chimenti & Maribel Carvalho Suarez, 2023. "Using deep learning language models as scaffolding tools in interpretive research," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 27(Vol. 27 N), pages 230021-2300.
    13. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
    14. Yang, Alex Jie & Wu, Linwei & Zhang, Qi & Wang, Hao & Deng, Sanhong, 2023. "The k-step h-index in citation networks at the paper, author, and institution levels," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    15. Thompson, Gary D. & Aradhyula, Satheesh V. & Frisvold, George B. & Tronstad, Russell, 2004. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19988, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Yining Wang & Qiang Wu & Liangyu Li, 2024. "Examining the influence of women scientists on scientific impact and novelty: insights from top business journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3517-3542, June.
    17. Wang Xian & Chen Guomin & Varsha Arya & Kwok Tai Chui, 2024. "Examining the Influence of AI Chatbots on Semantic Web-Based Global Information Management in Various Industries," International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS), IGI Global, vol. 20(1), pages 1-14, January.
    18. Wang, Cheng-Jun & Yan, Lihan & Cui, Haochuan, 2023. "Unpacking the essential tension of knowledge recombination: Analyzing the impact of knowledge spanning on citation impact and disruptive innovation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    19. Alin ZAMFIROIU & Denisa VASILE & Daniel SAVU, 2023. "ChatGPT – A Systematic Review of Published Research Papers," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 27(1), pages 5-16.
    20. Csaba Both & Nima Dehmamy & Rose Yu & Albert-László Barabási, 2023. "Accelerating network layouts using graph neural networks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:itse23:277971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.itseurope.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.