CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Ethics and Social Impacts of AISocial Media and PoliticsE-Government and Public Services

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Introducing AI to an Online Petition Platform Changed Outputs but not Outcomes

Open access
Corpus, Isabel, Gilbert, Eric, Koenecke, Allison, Naaman, Mor·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2511.13949arXiv 2511.13949
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rapid integration of AI writing tools into online platforms raises critical questions about their impact on content production and outcomes. We leverage a unique natural experiment on Change$.$org, a leading social advocacy platform, to causally investigate the effects of an in-platform ''write with AI'' tool. To understand the impact of the AI integration, we collected 1.5 million petitions and employed a difference-in-differences analysis. Our findings reveal that in-platform AI access significantly altered the lexical features of petitions and increased petition homogeneity, but did not improve petition outcomes. We confirmed the results in a separate analysis of repeat petition writers who wrote petitions before and after introduction of the AI tool. The results suggest that while AI writing tools can profoundly reshape online content, their practical utility for improving desired outcomes may be less beneficial than anticipated, and introduce unintended consequences like content homogenization.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2511.13949

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 findings of homogeneity among people who approached the AI system with low human agency align with prior research documenting large-scale changes in human communication post-ChatGPT, from flowery language in scientific publications to increased semantic similarity on online platforms.

    “Our findings of homogeneity among people who approached the AI system with low human agency align with prior research documenting large-scale changes in the way humans have communicated post-ChatGPT, from the use of flowery language in scientific publications [11] to increased semantic similarity on online platforms [3].”

    From The Role of Human Agency in Human-AI Co-Creativity (2026) · cites this paper as [3]

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 71

  1. Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654):187-192, 2023. doi: 10.1126/science.adh2586. URL https: //www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adh2586. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Anil R. Doshi and Oliver P. Hauser. Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Science Advances, 10(28):eadn5290, 2024. doi: 10.1126/sciadv. adn5290. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.adn5290. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Sandra C Matz, Jacob D Teeny, Sumer S Vaid, Heinrich Peters, Gabriella M Harari, and Moran Cerf. The potential of generative AI for personalized persuasion at scale. Scientific Reports, 14(1):4692, 2024.
  4. Lisa P Argyle, Ethan C Busby, Joshua R Gubler, Alex Lyman, Justin Olcott, Jackson Pond, and David Wingate. Testing theories of political persuasion using AI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(18):e2412815122, 2025.
  5. Harsh Kumar, Jonathan Vincentius, Ewan Jordan, and Ashton Anderson. Human creativity in the age of LLMs: Randomized experiments on divergent and convergent thinking. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-18, 2025.
  6. Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, and Thomas Malone. When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(12):2293-2303, December 2024. ISSN 2397-3374. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Fan Wu, Emily Black, and Varun Chandrasekaran. Generative monoculture in large lan- guage models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 33068-33107, 2025. URL https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/file/ 5178b2f2d7c44aa390c0777dc77b3f0c-Paper-Conference.pdf.
  8. Qianyue Hao, Fengli Xu, Yong Li, and James Evans. Artificial intelligence tools expand scientists' impact but contract science's focus. Nature, 649(8099):1237-1243, January 2026. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09922-y. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Dhruv Agarwal, Mor Naaman, and Aditya Vashistha. AI suggestions homogenize writing toward western styles and diminish cultural nuances. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-21, 2025.
  10. Barrett R Anderson, Jash Hemant Shah, and Max Kreminski. Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition, C&C '24, page 413-425, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400704857. doi: 10.1145/3635636.3656204. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3635636.3656204. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond. Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2):889-942, 02 2025. ISSN 0033-5533. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjae044. URL https: //doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Brantly Callaway and Pedro H.C. Sant'Anna. Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Jour- nal of Econometrics, 225(2):200-230, 2021. ISSN 0304-4076. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom. 2020.12.001. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407620303948. Themed Issue: Treatment Effect 1. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Mohsen Mesgar and Michael Strube. A neural local coherence model for text quality assessment. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 4328- 4339, 2018.
  14. Yuri Bizzoni, Pascale Moreira, Nicole Dwenger, Ida Lassen, Mads Thomsen, and Kristoffer Nielbo. Good reads and easy novels: Readability and literary quality in a corpus of US-published fiction. In Proceedings of the 24th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa), pages 42-51, 2023.
  15. Bo Cowgill, Pablo Hernández-Lagos, and Nataliya Langburd Wright. Does AI cheapen talk? theory and evidence from global entrepreneurship and hiring. Management Science, 0(0), 2026. doi: 10.1287/ mnsc.2024.07027. URL https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.07027. · DOI
  16. Vishakh Padmakumar and He He. Does writing with language models reduce content diversity? In B. Kim, Y. Yue, S. Chaudhuri, K. Fragkiadaki, M. Khan, and Y. Sun, editors, International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 642-669, 2024. URL https://proceedings.iclr. cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/02dec8877fb7c6aa9a79f81661baca7c-Paper-Conference.pdf.
  17. Kay H. Brodersen, Fabian Gallusser, Jim Koehler, Nicolas Remy, and Steven L. Scott. Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(1):247 -274, 2015. doi: 10.1214/14-AOAS788. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/14-AOAS788. · DOI
  18. Scott E. Maxwell. Pairwise multiple comparisons in repeated measures designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 5(3):269-287, 1980. doi: 10.3102/10769986005003269. URL https://doi.org/10.3102/ 10769986005003269. · DOI
  19. Fabrizio Dell'Acqua, Edward McFowland III, Ethan R. Mollick, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Katherine Kellogg, Saran Rajendran, Lisa Krayer, François Candelon, and Karim R. Lakhani. Navigating the Jagged Tech- nological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality, September 2023. SSRN [Preprint] https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4573321 (accessed 25 July 2025). · DOI · Paper page
  20. Loni Hagen, Teresa M. Harrison, Özlem Uzuner, William May, Tim Fake, and Satya Katragadda. E- petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Government Information Quarterly, 33 (4):783-795, 2016. ISSN 0740-624X. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.006. · DOI
  21. Yan Chen, Shuyuan Deng, Dong-Heon Kwak, Ahmed Elnoshokaty, and Jiao Wu. A multi-appeal model of persuasion for online petition success: A linguistic cue-based approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(2):3, 2019.
  22. Philipp Schoenegger, Francesco Salvi, Jiacheng Liu, Xiaoli Nan, Ramit Debnath, Barbara Fasolo, Evelina Leivada, Gabriel Recchia, Fritz Günther, Ali Zarifhonarvar, Joe Kwon, Zahoor Ul Islam, Marco Dehnert, Daryl Y. H. Lee, Madeline G. Reinecke, David G. Kamper, Mert Kobaş, Adam Sandford, Jonas Kgomo, Luke Hewitt, Shreya Kapoor, Kerem Oktar, Eyup Engin Kucuk, Bo Feng, Cameron R. Jones, Izzy Gainsburg, Sebastian Olschewski, Nora Heinzelmann, Francisco Cruz, Ben M. Tappin, Tao Ma, Peter S. Park, Rayan Onyonka, Arthur Hjorth, Peter Slattery, Qingcheng Zeng, Lennart Finke, Igor Grossmann, Alessandro Salatiello, and Ezra Karger. Large language models are more persuasive than incentivized human persuaders, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09662. (accessed 25 July 2025). · arXiv
  23. Zachary Wojtowicz and Simon DeDeo. Undermining mental proof: How ai can make cooperation harder by making thinking easier. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 39(2):1592- 1600, 4 2025. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v39i2.32151. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/ view/32151. · DOI
  24. Stefan Feuerriegel, Renée DiResta, Josh A Goldstein, Srijan Kumar, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Michael Tomz, and Nicolas Pröllochs. Research can help to tackle AI-generated disinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11):1818-1821, 2023.
  25. Anders Giovanni Møller, Daniel M. Romero, David Jurgens, and Luca Maria Aiello. The impact of generative AI on social media: An experimental study. arXiv [Preprint], 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2506.14295. (accessed 25 July 2025).
  26. Jane Tullis. Sifting through the slop: How generative AI created a market for lemons for text-based works. SSRN [Preprint], 2025. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5266660. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.5266660 (accessed 25 July 2025). · DOI
  27. Maurice Jakesch, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Mor Naaman. Human heuristics for AI-generated language are flawed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(11):e2208839120, 2023.
  28. Jessica A. Reif, Richard P. Larrick, and Jack B. Soll. Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(19):e2426766122, 2025. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2426766122. URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2426766122. · DOI
  29. Kowe Kadoma, Danaé Metaxa, and Mor Naaman. Generative AI and perceptual harms: Who's sus- pected of using llms? In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems, CHI '25, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400713941. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713897. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713897. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Maurice Jakesch, Megan French, Xiao Ma, Jeffrey T Hancock, and Mor Naaman. AI-mediated commu- nication: How the perception that profile text was written by AI affects trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1-13, 2019.
  31. Jess Hohenstein, Rene F Kizilcec, Dominic DiFranzo, Zhila Aghajari, Hannah Mieczkowski, Karen Levy, Mor Naaman, Jeffrey Hancock, and Malte F Jung. Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social relationships. Scientific Reports, 13(1):5487, 2023.
  32. Wen Duan, Shiwen Zhou, Matthew J Scalia, Xiaoyun Yin, Nan Weng, Ruihao Zhang, Guo Freeman, Nathan McNeese, Jamie Gorman, and Michael Tolston. Understanding the evolvement of trust over time within human-AI teams. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW2): 1-31, 2024.
  33. Hana Matatov, Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Ofra Amir, and Mor Naaman. Examining the prevalence and dynamics of AI-generated media in art subreddits. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07302, 2024. · arXiv
  34. Fiona Draxler, Anna Werner, Florian Lehmann, Matthias Hoppe, Albrecht Schmidt, Daniel Buschek, and Robin Welsch. The AI ghostwriter effect: When users do not perceive ownership of ai-generated text but self-declare as authors. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 31(2), February 2024. ISSN 1073-0516. doi: 10.1145/3637875. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3637875. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Kowe Kadoma, Marianne Aubin Le Quere, Xiyu Jenny Fu, Christin Munsch, Danaë Metaxa, and Mor Naaman. The role of inclusion, control, and ownership in workplace AI-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904. 3642650. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642650. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Yuxin Xu, Mengqiu Cheng, and Anastasia Kuzminykh. What makes it mine? exploring psychological ownership over human-ai co-creations. In Proceedings of the 50th Graphics Interface Conference, GI '24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400718281. doi: 10.1145/3670947.3670974. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3670947.3670974. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Jessica He, Stephanie Houde, and Justin D. Weisz. Which contributions deserve credit? perceptions of attribution in human-AI co-creation. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '25, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400713941. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713522. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713522. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Xuan Zhao, Niloufar Salehi, Sasha Naranjit, Sara Alwaalan, Stephen Voida, and Dan Cosley. The many faces of facebook: experiencing social media as performance, exhibition, and personal archive. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '13, page 1-10, New York, NY, USA, 2013. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450318990. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2470656. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470656. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Alexander Prosser, Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, Steven Sams, Tony Elliman, and Guy Fitzgerald. Do social networking groups support online petitions? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(1):20-31, 03 2011. ISSN 1750-6166. doi: 10.1108/17506161111114626. URL https://doi. org/10.1108/17506161111114626. · DOI
  40. Julia Proskurnia, Przemyslaw Grabowicz, Ryota Kobayashi, Carlos Castillo, Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, and Karl Aberer. Predicting the success of online petitions leveraging multidimensional time-series. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '17, page 755-764, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 2017. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. ISBN 9781450349130. doi: 10.1145/3038912.3052705. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3038912.3052705. · DOI
  41. Catherine L Dumas, Daniel LaManna, Teresa M Harrison, SS Ravi, Christopher Kotfila, Norman Ger- vais, Loni Hagen, and Feng Chen. Examining political mobilization of online communities through e-petitioning behavior in we the people. Big Data & Society, 2(2):2053951715598170, 2015. doi: 10.1177/2053951715598170. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715598170. · DOI
  42. Erin Brock Carlson. Please sign here (and share it to your facebook and twitter feeds): Online petitions and inventing for circulation. Computers and Composition, 52:175-194, 2019. ISSN 8755- 4615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.003. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S8755461517300737. · DOI
  43. Teresa M. Harrison, Catherine Dumas, Nic DePaula, Tim Fake, Will May, Akanksha Atrey, Jooyeon Lee, Lokesh Rishi, and S.S. Ravi. Exploring e-petitioning and media: The case of #bringback- ourgirls. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1):101569, 2022. ISSN 0740-624X. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101569. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0740624X21000058. · DOI
  44. Travis Lloyd, Joseph Reagle, and Mor Naaman. 'There has to be a lot that we're missing': Moderating AI-generated content on reddit. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 9(7), October 2025. doi: 10.1145/ 3757445. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3757445. · DOI
  45. Joseph B. Bak-Coleman, Stephan Lewandowsky, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Arvind Narayanan, Amy Or- ben, and Lisa Oswald. Moving towards informative and actionable social media research, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09254. · arXiv
  46. Sumin Lee and Vili Lehdonvirta. New digital safety net or just more 'friendfunding' ? institutional analysis of medical crowdfunding in the united states. Information, Communication & Society, 25(8): 1151-1175, 2022. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1850838. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X. 2020.1850838. · DOI
  47. Irma Borst, Christine Moser, and Julie Ferguson. From friendfunding to crowdfunding: Relevance of relationships, social media, and platform activities to crowdfunding performance. New Media & Society, 20(4):1396-1414, 2018. doi: 10.1177/1461444817694599. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444817694599. PMID: 30581357. · DOI
  48. Fred Zenker and Kristopher Kyle. Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assessing Writing, 47:100505, 2021. ISSN 1075-2935. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100505. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293520300660. · DOI
  49. Kincaid, Fishburne, P., L., and S. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch, Feb 1975. doi: 10.21236/ada006655. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Teerapaun Tanprasert and David Kauchak. Flesch-Kincaid is not a text simplification evaluation metric. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021), pages 1-14, 2021.
  51. Pranay Jindal and Joy C MacDermid. Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limita- tions of Flesch formula. Education for Health, 30(1):84-88, 2017.
  52. Maria del Rio-Chanona, Nadzeya Laurentsyeva, and Johannes Wachs. Are Large Language Models a Threat to Digital Public Goods? Evidence from Activity on Stack Overflow. PNAS Nexus, 3(9): pgae400, September 2024. ISSN 2752-6542. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae400. · DOI
  53. Pedro H.C. Sant'Anna and Jun Zhao. Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 219(1):101-122, 2020. ISSN 0304-4076. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.06. 003. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407620301901. · DOI · Paper page
  54. David M. J. Lazer, Alex Pentland, Duncan J. Watts, Sinan Aral, Susan Athey, Noshir Contractor, Deen Freelon, Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon, Gary King, Helen Margetts, Alondra Nelson, Matthew J. Salganik, Markus Strohmaier, Alessandro Vespignani, and Claudia Wagner. Computational social science: Ob- stacles and opportunities. Science, 369(6507):1060-1062, 2020. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz8170. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaz8170. · DOI · Paper page
  55. Joseph B. Bak-Coleman, Stephan Lewandowsky, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Arvind Narayanan, Amy Or- ben, and Lisa Oswald. Moving towards informative and actionable social media research, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09254. · arXiv
  56. Joseph Bak-Coleman, Jevin West, Cailin O'Connor, and Carl T. Bergstrom. Industry influence in high-profile social media research, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11507. · arXiv
  57. Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654):187-192, 2023. doi: 10.1126/science.adh2586. URL https: //www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adh2586. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Alyssa Appelman and S. Shyam Sundar. Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1):59-79, 2016. doi: 10.1177/ 1077699015606057. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057. · DOI
  59. C. Hutto and Eric Gilbert. VADER: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1):216-225, May 2014. doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550. · DOI · Paper page
  60. Esra Dönmez, Maximilian Maurer, Gabriella Lapesa, and Agnieszka Falenska. AI argues differ- ently: Distinct argumentative and linguistic patterns of LLMs in persuasive contexts. In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng, editors, Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 34583-34614, Suzhou, China, November 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics. ISBN 979-8-89176-332-6. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1755. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.emnlp-main.1755/. · DOI
  61. David M. Markowitz, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Jeremy N. Bailenson. Linguistic markers of inherently false ai communication and intentionally false human communication: Evidence from hotel reviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 43(1):63-82, 2024. doi: 10.1177/0261927X231200201. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231200201. · DOI
  62. Marianne Aubin Le Quéré and J. Nathan Matias. When curiosity gaps backfire: effects of head- line concreteness on information selection decisions. Scientific Reports, 15(1):994, January 2025. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-81575-9. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41598-024-81575-9. · DOI
  63. Robert Gunning. The fog index after twenty years. Journal of Business Communication, 6(2):3-13, 1969. doi: 10.1177/002194366900600202. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/002194366900600202. · DOI
  64. Maria del Rio-Chanona, Nadzeya Laurentsyeva, and Johannes Wachs. Are Large Language Models a Threat to Digital Public Goods? Evidence from Activity on Stack Overflow. PNAS Nexus, 3(9): pgae400, September 2024. ISSN 2752-6542. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae400. · DOI
  65. Jonathan Roth, Pedro H.C. Sant'Anna, Alyssa Bilinski, and John Poe. What's trending in difference- in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235(2): 2218-2244, 2023. ISSN 0304-4076. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.03.008. · DOI · Paper page
  66. James G. MacKinnon and Matthew D. Webb. Randomization inference for difference-in-differences with few treated clusters. Journal of Econometrics, 218(2):435-450, October 2020. ISSN 0304-4076. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.04.024. · DOI
  67. Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, Kathryn Henne, AJung Moon, Negar Rostamzadeh, Paul Nicholas, N'Mah Yilla-Akbari, Jess Gallegos, Andrew Smart, Emilio Garcia, and Gurleen Virk. Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES '23, page 723-741, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400702310. doi: 10.1145/3600211.3604673. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604673. · DOI · Paper page
  68. Thomas H. Costello, Gordon Pennycook, and David G. Rand. Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with ai. Science, 385(6714):eadq1814, 2024. doi: 10.1126/science.adq1814. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adq1814. · DOI · Paper page
  69. J. Scott Long and Laurie H. Ervin. Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear re- gression model. The American Statistician, 54(3):217-224, 2000. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549. URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549. · DOI
  70. Scott Cunningham. Causal Inference: The Mixtape. Yale University Press, 2021. ISBN 9780300251685. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1c29t27.
  71. Kay H. Brodersen, Fabian Gallusser, Jim Koehler, Nicolas Remy, and Steven L. Scott. Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(1):247 -274, 2015. doi: 10.1214/14-AOAS788. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/14-AOAS788. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Corpus, I., Gilbert, E., Koenecke, A., & Naaman, M.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Corpus, Isabel
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2511.13949
arXiv
2511.13949
OpenAlex
W7106111459
Cited by
2
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
11.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
Keywords
AI writing tools, online petitions, Change.org, content homogenization, lexical features, unintended consequences of AI, digital content creation

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