The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Delving into: the quantification of Ai-generated content on the internet (synthetic data)
Open accessAbstract
While it is increasingly evident that the internet is becoming saturated with content created by generated Ai large language models, accurately measuring the scale of this phenomenon has proven challenging. By analyzing the frequency of specific keywords commonly used by ChatGPT, this paper demonstrates that such linguistic markers can effectively be used to esti-mate the presence of generative AI content online. The findings suggest that at least 30% of text on active web pages originates from AI-generated sources, with the actual proportion likely ap-proaching 40%. Given the implications of autophagous loops, this is a sobering realization.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
From March/April 2023 onwards AI-generated text began to appear in academic writing.
“from March/April 2023 onwards AI-generated text began to appear in academic writing. [16]”
From How unique are hallucinated citations offered by generative Artificial Intelligence models? (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The Results and Discussion (p. 3) examine changes in the frequency of “delve into” in academic papers during 2023 and 2024, using it as a proxy for AI-related language. But the March/April 2023 turning point reported on p. 2 concerns webpages, not academic writing; the paper does not establish when AI-generated text first appeared in academic writing. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Spennemann, D. H. R. (2025) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications13010012 · Cited by 23
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- [7][7]. Baack, S. (2024). A critical analysis of the largest source for generative ai training data: Common crawl. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency; pp. 2199-2208. -
- [10][10]. Spennemann, D.H.R. (subm.). Pushing 150: How two generative Ai models understand time and envision the future. Foresight p. [under review]. doi. -
- [12][12]. Cyphert, A.B.; Blake, V.K. (2025). Code Blue: The Threat of Synthetic Data Use to Generative Medical AI. Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy 24 (1), pp. 167-190. doi. -
- [13][13]. Alemohammad, S.; Casco-Rodriguez, J.; Luzi, L.; Humayun, A.I.; Babaei, H.; LeJeune, D.; Siahkoohi, A.; Baraniuk, R.G. (2023). Self-consuming generative models go mad. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01850 4 p. 14. doi. - · arXiv
- [14][14]. Yang, S.; Ali, M.A.; Yu, L.; Hu, L.; Wang, D. (2024). MONAL: Model autophagy analysis for modeling human-AI interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11271 . doi. - · arXiv
- [15][15]. Alemohammad, S.; Humayun, A.I.; Agarwal, S.; Collomosse, J.; Baraniuk, R. (2024). Self-improving diffusion models with synthetic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16333 . doi. - · arXiv
- [16][16]. Gambetta, D.; Gezici, G.; Giannotti, F.; Pedreschi, D.; Knott, A.; Pappalardo, L. (2025). Characterizing Model Collapse in Large Language Models Using Semantic Networks and Next-Token Probability. 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12341. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12341. - · DOI
- [17][17]. Spennemann, D.H.R. (2023). Will the age of generative Artificial Intelligence become an age of public ignorance? Preprint 10.20944/preprints202309.1528.v1 pp. 1-12. doi: 10.20944/preprints202309.1528.v1 - · DOI
- [20][20]. Spennemann, D.H.R.; Biles, J.; Brown, L.; Ireland, M.F.; Longmore, L.; Singh, C.J.; Wallis, A.; Ward, C. (2024). ChatGPT giving advice on how to cheat in university assignments: How workable are its suggestions? Interactive Technology and Smart Education 21 (4), pp. 690-707. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-10-20230195. - · DOI
- [21][21]. Spennemann, D.H.R. (2023). ChatGPT and the generation of digitally born 'knowledge': how does a generative AI language model interpret cultural heritage values? Knowledge 3 (3), pp. 480-512. doi: 10.3390/knowledge3030032 - · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How unique are hallucinated citations offered by generative Artificial Intelligence models?
Spennemann, D. H. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.16407 · Cited by 4
“Not only did its general usage increase dramatically to a current user base of 900 million weekly users (Singh, 2026), but from March/April 2023 onwards, AI-generated text began to appear in academic writing (Spennemann, 2025a).”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Spennemann, D. H.
- Corresponding author
- Spennemann, Dirk HR
- ORCID
- Spennemann, Dirk HR
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2504.08755
- OpenAlex
- W4415152185
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- AI-generated content, large language models, ChatGPT, synthetic data, online texts, linguistic markers
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
