# Who Said That? Benchmarking Social Media AI Detection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08240 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08240/

## Key facts

- Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 17 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08745/) (2018)
- [Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03286/) (2022)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09203/) (2019)
- [How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07597/) (2023)
- [Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13408/) (2023)
- [Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11156/) (2023)
- [Multi-step Jailbreaking Privacy Attacks on ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05197/) (2023)
- [Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00539/) (2023)
- [TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.00036/) (2020)
- [Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04723/) (2023)
- [Multiscale Positive-Unlabeled Detection of AI-Generated Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18149/) (2023)
- [A Pathway Towards Responsible AI Generated Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.01325/) (2023)
- [Evade ChatGPT Detectors via A Single Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02599/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Detecting Multimedia Generated by Large AI Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00045/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Detection of LLMs-Generated Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15654/) (2023)
- [Beemo: Benchmark of Expert-edited Machine-generated Outputs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04032/) (2024)
- [Detecting AI-Generated Text: Factors Influencing Detectability with Current Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15583/) (2024)
- [A Survey of AI-generated Text Forensic Systems: Detection, Attribution, and Characterization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.01152/) (2024)
- [MultiSocial: Multilingual Benchmark of Machine-Generated Text Detection of Social-Media Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12549/) (2024)
- [When Detection Fails: The Power of Fine-Tuned Models to Generate Human-Like Social Media Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09975/) (2025)
- [RedNote-Vibe: A Dataset for Capturing Temporal Dynamics of AI-Generated Text in Lifestyle Social Media](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22055/) (2025)
- [On the Dangers of Bootstrapping Generation for Continual Learning and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.11867/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI-generated text has proliferated across various online platforms, offering both transformative prospects and posing significant risks related to misinformation and manipulation. Addressing these challenges, this paper introduces SAID (Social media AI Detection), a novel benchmark developed to assess AI-text detection models' capabilities in real social media platforms. It incorporates real AI-generate text from popular social media platforms like Zhihu and Quora. Unlike existing benchmarks, SAID deals with content that reflects the sophisticated strategies employed by real AI users on the Internet which may evade detection or gain visibility, providing a more realistic and challenging evaluation landscape. A notable finding of our study, based on the Zhihu dataset, reveals that annotators can distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated texts with an average accuracy rate of 96.5%. This finding necessitates a re-evaluation of human capability in recognizing AI-generated text in today's widely AI-influenced environment. Furthermore, we present a new user-oriented AI-text detection challenge focusing on the practicality and effectiveness of identifying AI-generated text based on user information and multiple responses. The experimental results demonstrate that conducting detection tasks on actual social media platforms proves to be more challenging compared to traditional simulated AI-text detection, resulting in a decreased accuracy. On the other hand, user-oriented AI-generated text detection significantly improve the accuracy of detection.