As Good As A Coin Toss: Human detection of AI-generated images, videos, audio, and audiovisual stimuli
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.
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
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
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
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
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.
Non-naive Participants Issue
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.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
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.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.