Artificial intelligence—friend or foe in fake news campaigns

Authors

  • Krzysztof Węcel Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5641-3160
  • Marcin Sawiński Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1226-4850
  • Milena Stróżyna Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7603-7369
  • Włodzimierz Lewoniewski Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0163-5492
  • Ewelina Księżniak Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1953-8014
  • Piotr Stolarski Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7076-2316
  • Witold Abramowicz Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poznań, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.2.736

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, fact‐checking, fake news, large language models

Abstract

In this paper the impact of large language models (LLM) on the fake news phenomenon is analysed. On the one hand decent text‐generation capabilities can be misused for mass fake news production. On the other, LLMs trained on huge volumes of text have already accumulated information on many facts thus one may assume they could be used for fact‐checking. Experiments were designed and conducted to verify how much LLM responses are aligned with actual fact‐checking verdicts. The research methodology consists of an experimental dataset preparation and a protocol for interacting with ChatGPT, currently the most sophisticated LLM. A research corpus was explicitly composed for the purpose of this work consisting of several thousand claims randomly selected from claim reviews published by fact‐checkers. Findings include: it is difficult to align the responses of ChatGPT with explanations provided by fact‐checkers; prompts have significant impact on the bias of responses. ChatGPT at the current state can be used as a support in fact‐checking but cannot verify claims directly.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agresti, S. Hashemian, S. A., & Carman, M. J. (2022). PoliMi-FlatEarthers at CheckThat! 2022: GPT-3 applied to claim detection. In. G. Faggioli, N. Ferro, A. Harbury &M. Potthast (Eds.), Proceedings of the working notes of CLEF 2022—Conference and labs of the evaluation forum. Bologna, Italy. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3180, pp. 422–427. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3180/paper-31.pdf
View in Google Scholar

Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023). Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writing. Cureus, 15(2), e35179. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179
View in Google Scholar

Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014). Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.0473
View in Google Scholar

Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., Do, Q. V., Xu, Y., & Fung, P. (2023). A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of ChatGPT on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.04023
View in Google Scholar

Bouie, J. (2023, March 11). Disinformation is not the real problem with democracy. The New York Times.
View in Google Scholar

Buchholz, K. (2023, January 24). ChatGPT sprints to one million users. Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/29174/time-to-one-million-users/
View in Google Scholar

Candelon, F., di Carlo, R.C., De Bondt, M.,& Evgeniou, T. (2021, September-October). AI regulation is coming. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/09/ai-regulation-is-coming
View in Google Scholar

Corfield, G. (2023, February 8). $120bn wiped off google after bard AI chatbot gives wrong answer. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2023/02/08/googlesbard-ai-chatbot-gives-wrong-answer-launch-event/
View in Google Scholar

Dale, R. (2021). GPT‐3: What’s it good for? Natural Language Engineering, 27(1), 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324920000601 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324920000601
View in Google Scholar

Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). BERT: Pre‐training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805
View in Google Scholar

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi M., Al-Busaidi, A., Balakrishman, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., ..., Carter, L. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
View in Google Scholar

Faggioli, G., Ferro, N., Hanbury, A., Potthast, M. (2022). Proceedings of the working notes of CLEF 2022—Conference and labs of the evaluation forum. Bologna, Italy. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3180. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3180/
View in Google Scholar

Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT‐3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30, 681–694. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
View in Google Scholar

Frieder, S., Pinchetti, L., Griffiths, R.‐R., Salvatori, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Petersen, P. C., Chevalier, A., & Berner, J. (2023). Mathematical capabilities of ChatGPT. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.13867
View in Google Scholar

George, A. S., & George, A. H. (2023). A review of ChatGPT AI’s impact on several business sectors. Partners Universal International Innovation Journal, 1(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7644359
View in Google Scholar

Gibbs, S. (2017, July 17). Elon Musk: Regulate AI to combat ‘existential threat’ before it’s too late. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/17/elon-musk-regulation-ai-combat-existential-threat-tesla-spacex-ceo
View in Google Scholar

Goldstein, J. A., Sastry, G., Musser, M., DiResta, R., Gentzel, M., & Sedova, K. (2023). Generative language models and automated influence operations: Emerging threats and potential mitigations. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.04246
View in Google Scholar

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Singh, R. P. (2022). An era of ChatGPT as a significant futuristic support tool: A study on features, abilities, and challenges. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 2(4), 100089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100089
View in Google Scholar

Hosseini, M., Gao, C. A., Liebovitz, D. M., Carvalho, A. M., Ahmad, F. S., Luo, Y., MacDonald, N., Holmes, K. L., & Kho, A. (2023, April 3). An exploratory survey about using ChatGPT in education, healthcare, and research. medRxiv, 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.31.23287979
View in Google Scholar

Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2022). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.03629 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730
View in Google Scholar

King, M. R., ChatGPT (2023). A conversation on artificial intelligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, 16(1), 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8
View in Google Scholar

Kirmani, A. R. (2022). Artificial intelligence—enabled science poetry. ACS Energy Letters, 8, 574– 576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.2c02758
View in Google Scholar

Launchbury, J. (2016, December 6). A DARPA perspective on artificial intelligence. DARPA. https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/AIFull.pdf
View in Google Scholar

LMSYS. (2023, May 25). Chatbot arena leaderboard updates. https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-05-25-leaderboard/
View in Google Scholar

Lopez‐Lira, A., & Tang, Y. (2023). Can ChatGPT forecast stock price movements? Return predictability and large language models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.07619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4412788
View in Google Scholar

Lund, B. D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: How may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Library Hi Tech News. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4333415
View in Google Scholar

Malone, T. W. (2018). Superminds: The surprising power of people and computers thinking together. Little, Brown Spark.
View in Google Scholar

Mayor, T. (2019). Ethics and automation: What to do when workers are displaced. MIT Management Sloan School. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/ethics-and-automation-what-to-do-when-workers-are-displaced
View in Google Scholar

McGee, R. W. (2023, April 8). Using artificial intelligence (AI) to compose a musical score for a taekwondo tournament routine: A ChatGPT experiment. Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11235.22569
View in Google Scholar

Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781
View in Google Scholar

Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1310.4546
View in Google Scholar

Motoki, F., Pinho Neto, V., & Rodrigues, V. (2023). More human than human: Measuring ChatGPT political bias. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4372349 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4372349
View in Google Scholar

OpenAI & Pilipiszyn, A. (2021, March 25). GPT‐3 powers the next generation of apps. https://openai.com/blog/gpt-3-apps
View in Google Scholar

Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., & Welinder, P. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155.
View in Google Scholar

Patel, S. B., & Lam, K. (2023). ChatGPT: The future of discharge summaries? The Lancet Digital Health, 5(3), e107–e108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00021-3
View in Google Scholar

Paul, J., Ueno, A., & Dennis, C. (2023). ChatGPT and consumers: Benefits, pitfalls and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47( 4), 1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12928 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12928
View in Google Scholar

Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1532–1543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1162
View in Google Scholar

Rivas, P., & Zhao, L. (2023). Marketing with ChatGPT: Navigating the ethical terrain of GPT‐based chatbot technology. AI, 4(2), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai4020019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ai4020019
View in Google Scholar

Romero, A. (2021, June 21). Understanding GPT‐3 in 5 minutes. https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-gpt-3-in-5-minutes-7fe35c3a1e52
View in Google Scholar

Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023, January 24). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
View in Google Scholar

Shen, Y., Heacock, L., Elias, J., Hentel, K. D., Reig, B., Shih, G., & Moy, L. (2023). ChatGPT and other large language models are double‐edged swords. Radiology, 307(2). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230163 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230163
View in Google Scholar

Thurzo, A., Strunga, M., Urban, R., Surovková, J., & Afrashtehfar, K. I. (2023). Impact of artificial intelligence on dental education: A review and guide for curriculum update. Education Sciences, 13(2), 150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020150
View in Google Scholar

Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
View in Google Scholar

Weizenbaum, J. (1966). Eliza—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/365153.365168
View in Google Scholar

Westerlund, M. (2019, November). The emergence of deepfake technology: A review. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(11), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1282
View in Google Scholar

Yang, Z., Li, L., Wang, J., Lin, K., Azarnasab, E., Ahmed, F., Liu, Z., Liu, C., Zeng, M., & Wang, L. (2023). MM‐react: Prompting ChatGPT for multimodal reasoning and action. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.11381
View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

2023-07-20

How to Cite

Węcel, K., Sawiński, M., Stróżyna, M., Lewoniewski, W., Księżniak, E., Stolarski, P., & Abramowicz, W. (2023). Artificial intelligence—friend or foe in fake news campaigns. Economics and Business Review, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.2.736

Issue

Section

Research article- regular issue