Detecting The Corruption Of Online Questionnaires By Artificial Intelligence
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Online questionnaires that use crowd-sourcing platforms to recruit participants have become commonplace, due to their ease of use and low costs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) based Large Language Models (LLM) have made it easy for bad actors to automatically fill in online forms, including generating meaningful text for open-ended tasks. These technological advances threaten the data quality for studies that use online questionnaires. This study tested if text generated by an AI for the purpose of an online study can be detected by both humans and automatic AI detection systems. While humans were able to correctly identify authorship of text above chance level (76 percent accuracy), their performance was still below what would be required to ensure satisfactory data quality. Researchers currently have to rely on the disinterest of bad actors to successfully use open-ended responses as a useful tool for ensuring data quality. Automatic AI detection systems are currently completely unusable. If AIs become too prevalent in submitting responses then the costs associated with detecting fraudulent submissions will outweigh the benefits of online questionnaires. Individual attention checks will no longer be a sufficient tool to ensure good data quality. This problem can only be systematically addressed by crowd-sourcing platforms. They cannot rely on automatic AI detection systems and it is unclear how they can ensure data quality for their paying clients.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 112 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2023.
Builds on
14 of 112 references.
References · 14
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
- 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 737
- 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
- 2023A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failurescited by 167
- 2022ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?cited by 88
- 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 84
- 2023Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelinescited by 57
- 2023ChatGPT and a New Academic Reality: Artificial Intelligence-Written Research Papers and the Ethics of the Large Language Models in Scholarly Publishingcited by 51
- 2023Putting ChatGPT's Medical Advice to the (Turing) Testcited by 23
- 2023To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question!cited by 20
- 2023ChatGPT Participates in a Computer Science Examcited by 19
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.