As Good As A Coin Toss: Human detection of AI-generated images, videos, audio, and audiovisual stimuli

44 citations

Abstract

One of the current principal defenses against weaponized synthetic media continues to be the ability of the targeted individual to visually or auditorily recognize AI-generated content when they encounter it. However, as the realism of synthetic media continues to rapidly improve, it is vital to have an accurate understanding of just how susceptible people currently are to potentially being misled by convincing but false AI generated content. We conducted a perceptual study with 1276 participants to assess how capable people were at distinguishing between authentic and synthetic images, audio, video, and audiovisual media. We find that on average, people struggled to distinguish between synthetic and authentic media, with the mean detection performance close to a chance level performance of 50%. We also find that accuracy rates worsen when the stimuli contain any degree of synthetic content, features foreign languages, and the media type is a single modality. People are also less accurate at identifying synthetic images when they feature human faces, and when audiovisual stimuli have heterogeneous authenticity. Finally, we find that higher degrees of prior knowledgeability about synthetic media does not significantly impact detection accuracy rates, but age does, with older individuals performing worse than their younger counterparts. Collectively, these results highlight that it is no longer feasible to rely on the perceptual capabilities of people to protect themselves against the growing threat of weaponized synthetic media, and that the need for alternative countermeasures is more critical than ever before.

44
Citations
Research
Paper Only

Study specs

Perceptual study evaluating participants' ability to identify authentic and synthetic images, audio, video, and audiovisual stimuli under various conditions.

Sample Size
N=1,276
Study Type
Experimental Study
Year
2024
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

Human ability to detect AI-generated media compared to authentic media, including factors like modality, content type, foreign languages, and participant demographics.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.