
Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the way we create and evaluate information, and this is happening during an infodemic, which has been having marked effects on global health. Here, we evaluate whether recruited individuals can distinguish disinformation from accurate information, structured in the form of tweets, and determine whether a tweet is organic or synthetic, i.e., whether it has been written by a Twitter user or by the AI model GPT-3. The results of our preregistered study, including 697 participants, show that GPT-3 is a double-edge sword: In comparison with humans, it can produce accurate information that is easier to understand, but it can also produce more compelling disinformation. We also show that humans cannot distinguish between tweets generated by GPT-3 and written by real Twitter users. Starting from our results, we reflect on the dangers of AI for disinformation and on how information campaigns can be improved to benefit global health.
FOS: Computer and information sciences, 1000 Multidisciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Computer Science - Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science - Human-Computer Interaction, 610 Medicine & health, Social and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC), Computer Science - Computers and Society, Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI), Artificial Intelligence, Computers and Society (cs.CY), 10222 Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, Humans, Social Media
FOS: Computer and information sciences, 1000 Multidisciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Computer Science - Artificial Intelligence, Computer Science - Human-Computer Interaction, 610 Medicine & health, Social and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC), Computer Science - Computers and Society, Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI), Artificial Intelligence, Computers and Society (cs.CY), 10222 Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, Humans, Social Media
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 164 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% |
