IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/ecobur/v9y2023i2p41-70n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Artificial intelligence—friend or foe in fake news campaigns

Author

Listed:
  • Węcel Krzysztof

    (1 Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland)

  • Sawiński Marcin

    (2 Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland)

  • Stróżyna Milena

    (3 Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland)

  • Lewoniewski Włodzimierz

    (4 Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland)

  • Księżniak Ewelina

    (5 Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland)

  • Stolarski Piotr

    (6 Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland)

  • Abramowicz Witold

    (7 Department of Information Systems, Poznań University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875, Poznań, Poland)

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 respons‐ es 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Węcel Krzysztof & Sawiński Marcin & Stróżyna Milena & Lewoniewski Włodzimierz & Księżniak Ewelina & Stolarski Piotr & Abramowicz Witold, 2023. "Artificial intelligence—friend or foe in fake news campaigns," Economics and Business Review, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 41-70, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:vrs:ecobur:v:9:y:2023:i:2:p:41-70:n:7
    DOI: 10.18559/ebr.2023.2.736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2023.2.736
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18559/ebr.2023.2.736?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    artificial intelligence; large language models; fake news; fact‐checking;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C45 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Neural Networks and Related Topics
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:ecobur:v:9:y:2023:i:2:p:41-70:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.