Did ChatGPT or Copilot use alter the style of internet news headlines? A time series regression analysis
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1109/icmi65310.2025.11141113
Abstract
The release of advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Copilot is changing the way text is created and may influence the content that we find on the web. This study investigated whether the release of these two popular LLMs coincided with a change in writing style in headlines and links on worldwide news websites. 175 NLP features were obtained for each text in a dataset of 451 million headlines/links. An interrupted time series analysis was applied for each of the 175 NLP features to evaluate whether there were any statistically significant sustained changes after the release dates of ChatGPT and/or Copilot. There were a total of 44 features that did not appear to have any significant sustained change after the release of ChatGPT/Copilot. A total of 91 other features did show significant change with ChatGPT and/or Copilot although significance with earlier control LLM release dates (GPT-1/2/3, Gopher) removed them from consideration. This initial analysis suggests these language models may have had a limited impact on the style of individual news headlines/links, with respect to only some NLP measures.
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?
Prior surveys indicated that ChatGPT is the dominant GenAI tool used by British undergraduates, at least through 2024.
“prior surveys indicated that ChatGPT is the dominant GenAI tool used by British undergraduates, at least through 2024 3 .”
From Style, sentiment, and quality of undergraduate writing in the AI era: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of 4,820 authentic empirical reports (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
The Introduction (page unavailable) says ChatGPT was likely the most popular LLM at the time of writing. It does not report prior surveys, identify British undergraduates as the population, or establish their tool use through 2024. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA 2024 survey by the Digital Education Council found that 86% of undergraduate students across 16 countries employed GenAI tools in their studies.
“Similarly, a 2024 survey by the Digital Education Council 3 revealed that 86% of undergraduate students across 16 countries employed GenAI tools in their studies.”
From Style, sentiment, and quality of undergraduate writing in the AI era: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of 4,820 authentic empirical reports (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
The Introduction and Methods discuss LLM use and an analysis of news headlines, not undergraduate students. Searches for the Digital Education Council survey, 86%, and student use of GenAI found no passage in our copy supporting the survey result. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA 2024 survey of nearly 4,000 university students worldwide found ChatGPT to be the most widely used GenAI tool with a 66% adoption rate, followed by Grammarly and Copilot at approximately 25% each.
“However, a 2024 survey of nearly 4,000 university students across the world found ChatGPT to be the most widely used GenAI tool, with a 66% adoption rate 3 . Grammarly and Copilot followed at approximately 25% each.”
From Style, sentiment, and quality of undergraduate writing in the AI era: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of 4,820 authentic empirical reports (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
The Introduction describes ChatGPT as likely the most popular LLM, but it does not report a survey of university students. Searches for the 2024 survey, its sample size, Grammarly, and the 66% and 25% adoption figures found no passage addressing those claims. The paper instead analyzes news headlines and links (Introduction; Results; page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A Survey on ChatGPT: AI–Generated Contents, Challenges, and Solutions
Wang, Y., Pan, Y., Yan, M., Su, Z., & Luan, T. H. (2023) · IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society · doi:10.1109/ojcs.2023.3300321 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
All That’s ‘Human’ Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Text
Clark, E., August, T., Serrano, S., Haduong, N., Gururangan, S., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.565 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Text
Muñoz-Ortiz, A., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., & Vilares, D. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10903-2 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
A Survey on the Use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Fake News
Papageorgiou, E., Chronis, C., Varlamis, I., & Himeur, Y. (2024) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi16080298 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Towards Understanding the Interplay of Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Internet
Martínez, G., Watson, L., Reviriego, P., Hernández, J. A., Juarez, M., & Sarkar, R. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57963-9_5 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
GPT-generated Text Detection: Benchmark Dataset and Tensor-based Detection Method
Qazi, Z., Shiao, W., & Papalexakis, E. E. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589335.3651513 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [3][3] A. Mccutcheon and C. Brogly, "Interrupted time series analysis of clickbait on worldwide news websites , 2016-2023," in 2nd IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Internet of Things (AIBThings), Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, USA, 2024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McCutcheon, A., de Oliveira, T. E. A., Zheleznov, A., & Brogly, C. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Internet of Things (AIBThings) · doi:10.1109/aibthings66987.2025.11296169 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Influence of the Short Video Program 'Anchor Says' on General News Reporting in China
Hu, X., & Mothar, N. M. M. (2025) · International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Scope · doi:10.47857/irjms.2025.v06i03.05321 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Mak, M. H. C., & Walasek, L. (2025) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100507 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Do small language models generate realistic variable-quality fake news headlines?
McCutcheon, A., & Brogly, C. (2025) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Internet of Things (AIBThings) · doi:10.1109/aibthings66987.2025.11296264
Self-citation
- Authors
- Brogly, C., & McElroy, C.
- Affiliations
- Lakehead University (CA)
- ORCID
- Brogly, Chris
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 1-5
- arXiv
- 2503.23811
- OpenAlex
- W4414055033
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 3.54
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Computing and Machine Intelligence (ICMI) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistic research and analysis
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, Copilot, large language models, news headlines, writing style, online news, GPT-3, gophers, text generation
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
