Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the feasibility of community-based detection of AI-generated health advice in online health communities, focusing on the impact of lived experience, AI-recognition training, and user attitudes towards transparency. Through an online experiment across two health conditions, the study reveals that participants struggle to reliably distinguish between AI-generated and human-written advice. The findings highlight the critical need for transparency and trust in AI use within these communities, while also suggesting avenues for improving LLM self-moderation and community-based AI moderation strategies.
People can't tell the difference between AI-generated and human-written health advice online, raising serious trust and transparency concerns for online health communities.
For online health communities, community trust is paramount. Yet, advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) generating advice may erode this trust, especially if users cannot identify whether LLMs have been used. We investigate the feasibility of community-based detection of health advice authorship and how self-moderation of LLMs could help enhance advice utilization. In an online experiment, we evaluate people's ability to distinguish AI-generated from human-written advice across two health conditions, considering lived experience with a condition, AI-recognition training, and user attitudes towards transparency and trust around AI use. Our results indicate the need for transparency coupled with trust. We find little evidence of people's ability to discern advice authorship. However, we find a consistent effect of the health condition. Our qualitative findings identify unreliable signals, resulting in flawed heuristic evaluations of the advice. Our findings point to opportunities to improve the self-moderation of LLM-based AI and aid community-based AI moderation.
