# When Detection Fails: The Power of Fine-Tuned Models to Generate Human-Like Social Media Text

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09975 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09975/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.11305/) (2023)
- [GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04043/) (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)
- [Fast-DetectGPT: Efficient Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text via Conditional Probability Curvature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05130/) (2023)
- [Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12070/) (2024)
- [DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05540/) (2023)
- [GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.02819/) (2023)
- [MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13242/) (2023)
- [TweepFake: about Detecting Deepfake Tweets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.00036/) (2020)
- [CoAID: COVID-19 Healthcare Misinformation Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.00885/) (2020)
- [Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical styles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16107/) (2024)
- [Stylometric Detection of AI-Generated Text in Twitter Timelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.03697/) (2023)
- [Fighting Fire with Fire: The Dual Role of LLMs in Crafting and Detecting Elusive Disinformation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15515/) (2023)
- [A Decade of Social Bot Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.03604/) (2020)
- [Attribution and Obfuscation of Neural Text Authorship: A Data Mining Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10488/) (2022)
- [Origin Tracing and Detecting of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.14072/) (2023)
- [Are We in the AI-Generated Text World Already? Quantifying and Monitoring AIGT on Social Media](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18148/) (2024)
- [Overview of AuTexTification at IberLEF 2023: Detection and Attribution of Machine-Generated Text in Multiple Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11285/) (2023)
- [On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05524/) (2023)
- [Stumbling Blocks: Stress Testing the Robustness of Machine-Generated Text Detectors Under Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11638/) (2024)
- [How Reliable Are AI-Generated-Text Detectors? An Assessment Framework Using Evasive Soft Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05095/) (2023)
- [Detecting AI-Generated Text: Factors Influencing Detectability with Current Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15583/) (2024)
- [DAMAGE: Detecting Adversarially Modified AI Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03437/) (2025)
- [Who Said That? Benchmarking Social Media AI Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08240/) (2023)
- [MiDe22: An Annotated Multi-Event Tweet Dataset for Misinformation Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.05401/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [The Impact of AI-Generated Text on the Internet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.26965/) (2026)
- [On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Text: What Exactly Is LLM-Generated Text?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20810/) (2025)
- [Hitting a Moving Target: Test-Time Adaptation for AI Text Detection under Continual Distribution Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25152/) (2026)
- [CrisisFake: Benchmark Validity of AI-Generated Text Detection for Disaster Social Sensing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.35821/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Detecting AI-generated text is a difficult problem to begin with; detecting AI-generated text on social media is made even more difficult due to the short text length and informal, idiosyncratic language of the internet. It is nonetheless important to tackle this problem, as social media represents a significant attack vector in online influence campaigns, which may be bolstered through the use of mass-produced AI-generated posts supporting (or opposing) particular policies, decisions, or events. We approach this problem with the mindset and resources of a reasonably sophisticated threat actor, and create a dataset of 505,159 AI-generated social media posts from a combination of open-source, closed-source, and fine-tuned LLMs, covering 11 different controversial topics. We show that while the posts can be detected under typical research assumptions about knowledge of and access to the generating models, under the more realistic assumption that an attacker will not release their fine-tuned model to the public, detectability drops dramatically. This result is confirmed with a human study. Ablation experiments highlight the vulnerability of various detection algorithms to fine-tuned LLMs. This result has implications across all detection domains, since fine-tuning is a generally applicable and realistic LLM use case.