Machine-Made Media: Monitoring the Mobilization of Machine-Generated Articles on Misinformation and Mainstream News Websites
Open accessAbstract
As large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have gained traction, an increasing number of news websites have begun utilizing them to generate articles. However, not only can these language models produce factually inaccurate articles on reputable websites but disreputable news sites can utilize LLMs to mass produce misinformation. To begin to understand this phenomenon, we present one of the first large-scale studies of the prevalence of synthetic articles within online news media. To do this, we train a DeBERTa-based synthetic news detector and classify over 15.46 million articles from 3,074 misinformation and mainstream news websites. We find that between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2023, the relative number of synthetic news articles increased by 57.3% on mainstream websites while increasing by 474% on misinformation sites. We find that this increase is largely driven by smaller less popular websites. Analyzing the impact of the release of ChatGPT using an interrupted-time-series, we show that while its release resulted in a marked increase in synthetic articles on small sites as well as misinformation news websites, there was not a corresponding increase on large mainstream news websites.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The relative quantity of AI-generated news articles on mainstream websites has risen by 55.4%, whereas on websites known for disseminating misinformation, it has risen by 457% from January 1, 2022, to May 1, 2023.
“A recent research from Hanley and Durumeric (2023) indicates that the relative quantity of AI-generated news articles on mainstream websites has risen by 55.4%, whereas on websites known for disseminating misinformation, it has risen by 457% from January 1, 2022, to May 1, 2023.”
From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Hanley and Durumeric (2023)
The Introduction and the Large-Scale Trends section report relative increases of 57.3% for mainstream websites and 474% for misinformation websites between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2023. The cited paper supports the direction and period of the claim, but gives different figures from the attributed 55.4% and 457%. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHanley et al. found a significant surge in machine-generated text in news media outlets after the release of ChatGPT, particularly on low-credibility websites.
“One example comes from Hanley et al., who analyze machine-generated text in news media outlets and find a significant surge in such content after the release of ChatGPT, particularly on low-credibility websites (Hanley and Durumeric, 2023).”
From Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet (2024) · cites this paper as Hanley and Durumeric, 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 36
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Acar, G.; Eubank, C.; Englehardt, S.; Juarez, M.; Narayanan, A.; and Diaz, C. 2014. The Web Never For- gets: Persistent Tracking Mechanisms in the Wild. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security.
- Baumgartner, J.; Zannettou, S.; Keegan, B.; Squire, M.; and Blackburn, J. 2020. The pushshift reddit dataset. In AAAI conference on web and social media.
- Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 33.
- Chen, P.-J.; Lee, A.; Wang, C.; Goyal, N.; Fan, A.; Williamson, M.; and Gu, J. 2020. Facebook AI's WMT20 News Translation Task Submission. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Translation, 113-125.
- Chowdhery, A.; Narang, S.; Devlin, J.; Bosma, M.; Mishra, G.; Roberts, A.; Barham, P.; Chung, H. W.; Sutton, C.; Gehrmann, S.; et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. · arXiv
- Corney, D.; Albakour, D.; Martinez, M.; and Moussa, S. 2016. What do a Million News Articles Look like? In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Re- cent Trends in News Information Retrieval co-located with 38th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR 2016), Padua, Italy, March 20, 2016., 42-47.
- Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: Human Language Technologies.
- Gagiano, R.; Kim, M. M.-H.; Zhang, X. J.; and Biggs, J. 2021. Robustness analysis of grover for machine-generated news detection. In 19th Annual Workshop of the Aus- tralasian Language Technology Association.
- Gehrmann, S.; Strobelt, H.; and Rush, A. M. 2019. Gltr: Sta- tistical detection and visualization of generated text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04043. · arXiv
- Hanley, H. W.; Kumar, D.; and Durumeric, Z. 2023. A Golden Age: Conspiracy Theories' Relationship with Mis- information Outlets, News Media, and the Wider Internet. ACM Computer-Supported Cooperative Work And Social Computing.
- He, P.; Liu, X.; Gao, J.; and Chen, W. 2021. DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- He, X.; Shen, X.; Chen, Z.; Backes, M.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text De- tection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14822. · arXiv
- Hounsel, A.; Holland, J.; Kaiser, B.; Borgolte, K.; Feamster, N.; and Mayer, J. 2020. Identifying Disinformation Websites Using Infrastructure Features. In USENIX Workshop on Free and Open Communications on the Internet.
- Ippolito, D.; Duckworth, D.; Callison-Burch, C.; and Eck, D. 2020. Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Jack, C. 2017. Lexicon of lies: Terms for problematic infor- mation. Data & Society, 3(22): 1094-1096.
- Keskar, N. S.; McCann, B.; Varshney, L. R.; Xiong, C.; and Socher, R. 2019. Ctrl: A conditional transformer lan- guage model for controllable generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05858. · arXiv
- Lample, G.; and Conneau, A. 2019. Cross-lingual language model pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07291. · arXiv
- Liu, Y.; Ott, M.; Goyal, N.; Du, J.; Joshi, M.; Chen, D.; Levy, O.; Lewis, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; and Stoyanov, V. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
- Mitchell, E.; Lee, Y.; Khazatsky, A.; Manning, C. D.; and Finn, C. 2023. Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11305. · arXiv
- Ng, N.; Yee, K.; Baevski, A.; Ott, M.; Auli, M.; and Edunov, S. 2019. Facebook FAIR's WMT19 News Translation Task Submission. In Fourth Conference on Machine Translation.
- Pu, J.; Sarwar, Z.; Abdullah, S. M.; Rehman, A.; Kim, Y.; Bhattacharya, P.; Javed, M.; and Viswanath, B. 2022. Deep- fake Text Detection: Limitations and Opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09421. · arXiv
- Radford, A.; Wu, J.; Child, R.; Luan, D.; Amodei, D.; Sutskever, I.; et al. 2019b. Language models are unsuper- vised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8): 9.
- Raffel, C.; Shazeer, N.; Roberts, A.; Lee, K.; Narang, S.; Matena, M.; Zhou, Y.; Li, W.; and Liu, P. J. 2020. Explor- ing the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1).
- Ruth, K.; Kumar, D.; Wang, B.; Valenta, L.; and Durumeric, Z. 2022. Toppling top lists: Evaluating the accuracy of popu- lar website lists. In ACM Internet Measurement Conference.
- Sadasivan, V. S.; Kumar, A.; Balasubramanian, S.; Wang, W.; and Feizi, S. 2023. Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11156. · arXiv
- Singrodia, V.; Mitra, A.; and Paul, S. 2019. A review on web scrapping and its applications. In 2019 international confer- ence on computer communication and informatics (ICCCI), 1-6. IEEE.
- Smith, J. R.; Saint-Amand, H.; Plamada, M.; Koehn, P.; Callison-Burch, C.; and Lopez, A. 2013. Dirt cheap web- scale parallel text from the common crawl. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Brundage, M.; Clark, J.; Askell, A.; Herbert- Voss, A.; Wu, J.; Radford, A.; Krueger, G.; Kim, J. W.; Kreps, S.; et al. 2019. Release strategies and the social im- pacts of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09203. · arXiv
- Tang, R.; Chuang, Y.-N.; and Hu, X. 2023. The sci- ence of detecting llm-generated texts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07205. · arXiv
- Uchendu, A.; Le, T.; Shu, K.; and Lee, D. 2020. Authorship attribution for neural text generation. In Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
- Uchendu, A.; Ma, Z.; Le, T.; Zhang, R.; and Lee, D. 2021. TURINGBENCH: A Benchmark Environment for Turing Test in the Age of Neural Text Generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP.
- Veselovsky, V.; Ribeiro, M. H.; and West, R. 2023. Artificial Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Crowd Workers Widely Use Large Language Models for Text Production Tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07899. · arXiv
- Yang, Z.; Dai, Z.; Yang, Y.; Carbonell, J.; Salakhutdinov, R. R.; and Le, Q. V. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32.
- Zellers, R.; Holtzman, A.; Rashkin, H.; Bisk, Y.; Farhadi, A.; Roesner, F.; and Choi, Y. 2019. Defending Against Neu- ral Fake News. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32.
- Zhong, W.; Tang, D.; Xu, Z.; Wang, R.; Duan, N.; Zhou, M.; Wang, J.; and Yin, J. 2020. Neural Deepfake Detection with Factual Structure of Text. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).
- Authors
- Hanley, H. W. A., & Durumeric, Z.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 18
- Pages
- 542-556
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2305.09820
- OpenAlex
- W4399205394
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 40.59
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- large language models, ChatGPT, misinformation, news websites, mainstream media, DeBERTa
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
