大模型生成的假评论已无法被人类或机器识别,真实性判断面临系统性失效。
Large Language Models as 'Hidden Persuaders': Fake Product Reviews are Indistinguishable to Humans and Machines
- 用大模型生成假评论,人类与机器均无法有效区分。
- 人类准确率仅50.8%,与随机猜测无异;大模型表现更差。
- 揭示了人类对好评天然怀疑、易误判负面假评的认知弱点。
在线购物决策依赖产品评价,但大型语言模型和生成式人工智能使伪造评论变得前所未有的容易。通过三项研究发现:(1) 人类无法区分真实与机器生成的假评论,平均准确率仅为50.8%,相当于随机猜测水平;(2) 大型语言模型同样无法区分,表现甚至劣于人类;(3) 人类与大模型采用不同判断策略,导致准确率相似但精确率、召回率与F1分数差异显著,说明二者在不同维度上犯错。结果表明,若缺乏可信购买验证机制,所有评价系统都面临自动化欺诈风险。同时,研究揭示消费者存在对正面评价的固有怀疑倾向,并特别容易误判负面假评论的真实性。此外,首次揭示了大模型在判断假评论时的“机器心理”——其判断策略与人类截然不同,虽同样不准确,但错误模式各异。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Reading and evaluating product reviews is central to how most people decide what to buy and consume online. However, the recent emergence of Large Language Models and Generative Artificial Intelligence now means writing fraudulent or fake reviews is potentially easier than ever. Through three studies we demonstrate that (1) humans are no longer able to distinguish between real and fake product reviews generated by machines, averaging only 50.8% accuracy overall - essentially the same that would be expected by chance alone; (2) that LLMs are likewise unable to distinguish between fake and real reviews and perform equivalently bad or even worse than humans; and (3) that humans and LLMs pursue different strategies for evaluating authenticity which lead to equivalently bad accuracy, but different precision, recall and F1 scores - indicating they perform worse at different aspects of judgment. The results reveal that review systems everywhere are now susceptible to mechanised fraud if they do not depend on trustworthy purchase verification to guarantee the authenticity of reviewers. Furthermore, the results provide insight into the consumer psychology of how humans judge authenticity, demonstrating there is an inherent 'scepticism bias' towards positive reviews and a special vulnerability to misjudge the authenticity of fake negative reviews. Additionally, results provide a first insight into the 'machine psychology' of judging fake reviews, revealing that the strategies LLMs take to evaluate authenticity radically differ from humans, in ways that are equally wrong in terms of accuracy, but different in their misjudgments.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。