IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/2321.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Man vs. machine: Experimental evidence on the quality and perceptions of AI-generated research content

Author

Listed:
  • Breisinger, Clemens
  • Karachiwalla, Naureen
  • Keenan, Michael
  • Kim, MinAh
  • Koo, Jawoo
  • Mwangi, Christine

Abstract

Academic researchers want their research to be understood and used by non-technical audiences, but that requires communication that is more accessible in the form of non-technical and shorter summaries. The researcher must both signal the quality of the research and ensure that the content is salient by making it more readable. AI tools can improve salience; however, they can also lead to ambiguity in the signal since true effort is then difficult to observe. We implement an online factorial experiment providing non-technical audiences with a blog on an academic paper and vary the actual author of the blog from the same paper (human or ChatGPT) and whether respondents are told the blog is written by a human or AI tool. Even though AI-generated blogs are objectively of higher quality, they are rated lower, but not if the author is disclosed as AI, indicating that signaling is important and can be distorted by AI. Use of the blog does not vary by experimental arm. The findings suggest that, provided disclosure statements are included, researchers can potentially use AI to reduce effort costs without compromising signaling or salience. Academic researchers want their research to be understood and used by non-technical audiences, but that requires communication that is more accessible in the form of non-technical and shorter summaries. The researcher must both signal the quality of the research and ensure that the content is salient by making it more readable. AI tools can improve salience; however, they can also lead to ambiguity in the signal since true effort is then difficult to observe. We implement an online factorial experiment providing non-technical audiences with a blog on an academic paper and vary the actual author of the blog from the same paper (human or ChatGPT) and whether respondents are told the blog is written by a human or AI tool. Even though AI-generated blogs are objectively of higher quality, they are rated lower, but not if the author is disclosed as AI, indicating that signaling is important and can be distorted by AI. Use of the blog does not vary by experimental arm. The findings suggest that, provided disclosure statements are included, researchers can potentially use AI to reduce effort costs without compromising signaling or salience.

Suggested Citation

  • Breisinger, Clemens & Karachiwalla, Naureen & Keenan, Michael & Kim, MinAh & Koo, Jawoo & Mwangi, Christine, 2024. "Man vs. machine: Experimental evidence on the quality and perceptions of AI-generated research content," IFPRI discussion papers 2321, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:2321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstreams/cc7599b1-02e9-4219-b1f3-370a5e884e55/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    artificial intelligence; communication; research; Southern Asia;
    All these keywords.

    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:fpr:ifprid:2321. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    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.