cs.CLApr 24, 2026

Measuring and Mitigating Persona Distortions from AI Writing Assistance

Authors: Paul Röttger, Kobi Hackenburg, Hannah Rose Kirk, Christopher Summerfield

Organizations: University of Oxford · UK AI Security Institute

Abstract

Hundreds of millions of people use artificial intelligence (AI) for writing assistance. Here, we evaluated how AI writing assistance distorts writer personas - their perceived beliefs, personality, and identity. In three large-scale experiments, writers (N=2,939) wrote political opinion paragraphs with and without AI assistance. Separate groups of readers (N=11,091) blindly evaluated these paragraphs across 29 socially salient dimensions of reader perception, spanning political opinion, writing quality, writer personality, emotions, and demographics. AI writing assistance produced persona distortions across all dimensions: with AI, writers seemed more opinionated, competent, and positive, and their perceived demographic profile shifted towards more privileged groups. Writers objected to many of the observed distortions, yet continued to prefer AI-assisted text even when made aware of them. We successfully mitigated objectionable persona distortions at the model level by training reward models on our experimental data (10,008 paragraphs, 2,903,596 ratings) to steer AI outputs towards faithful representation of writer stance. However, this came at a cost to user acceptance, suggesting an entanglement between desirable and undesirable properties of AI writing assistance that may be difficult to resolve. In two follow-up studies (N=8,798), readers placed substantially more trust in AI-assisted writers and were more persuaded by AI writing when AI was more distortive. Together, our findings demonstrate that persona distortions from AI writing assistance are pervasive and persistent even under realistic conditions of human oversight, and that they are likely to have consequential effects on human behaviours and attitudes, which carries implications for public discourse, trust, and democratic deliberation that scale with AI adoption.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 25, 2026cs.HC

Can Humans Detect AI? Mining Textual Signals of AI-Assisted Writing Under Varying Scrutiny Conditions

This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference. In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work using an AI chatbot. Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning. Both groups had access to the same chatbot. In Phase 2, 251 independent judges evaluated 1,999 paired comparisons, each time choosing which document in the pair was written by a human. Judges were not told that both writers had access to AI. Across all evaluations, judges selected the warned writer's document as human 54.13% of the time versus 45.87% for the unwarned writer. A two-sided binomial test rejects chance guessing at p = 0.000243, and the result holds across both writing stances. Yet on every measurable text feature extracted, including AI overlap scores, lexical diversity, sentence structure, and pronoun usage, the two groups were indistinguishable. The judges are picking up on something that feature-based methods do not capture.
Daniel Tabach
Ai-Assisted WritingArtificial Intelligence ReviewersWritingTwo-Sample Testing
AskPDF
Jun 10, 2026cs.SI

"That's AI Slop, You Bot!" Studying Accusations, Evidence, and Credibility in Online Discourse Towards LLM-Generated Comments

Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gatekeeping of perceived authenticity without actually screening for AI. This research extends signaling theory by showing that substitute signals used socially can grow even when inaccurate if the underlying detection problem cannot be solved at the non-expert level. It shows that AI's effects on writing from the reader side are distinct from those on the production (writer) side. Detection technology cannot resolve this dynamic because the social function of accusations is increasingly to perform social gatekeeping and in-group signaling as opposed to identifying AI-generated writing.
Jason Miklian, John E. Katsos
Generative Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence ReviewersDiscourseArtificial Intelligence SystemsFalsificationSentiment Analysis
AskPDF
May 30, 2026cs.LG

The Assistant as a Privileged Persona: A canonical reference in cross-persona self-recognition

Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context. In a companion paper \citep{jack2026twomodes} we showed they can also recognize when they are currently acting on-policy, through the sharp entropy drop of assistant-mode generation. Both signals are tied to the Assistant persona that post-training mainly shapes. This paper widens the frame to cross-persona authorship judgement on Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We measure a matrix of authorship claim rates over a panel of evaluator and generator personas spanning librarian to dragon to Shakespeare, and make two claims. \emph{First}, on the Assistant's own row of the matrix, the Assistant's claim rate, the persona-vector distance from the Assistant in activation space, and the entropy gap between the Assistant's surprise on a persona's text and the persona's surprise on its own text are all tightly coupled. This extends the entropy signature of \emph{acting} from the companion paper to a retrospective signature of \emph{having acted}. \emph{Second}, this coupling fails off the Assistant's row: the natural symmetric extension of the entropy gap does not predict authorship for distinctive evaluators (pirate, dragon, Shakespeare); what does is asymmetric -- the evaluator's surprise compared to the Assistant's surprise on the same text, not to the generator's. We rule out the alternative that any persona could play this reference role by trying many candidate substitutes; none does. We interpret the asymmetry as the model performing an implicit Bayesian likelihood-ratio test against the Assistant as the canonical alternative hypothesis, with the persona-vector geometry of \citet{chen2025persona} (every persona a delta off the Assistant) ensuring that the Assistant is the only persona universally accessible to that test.
Asvin G
AuthorshipPersonasSelf-AwarenessSignaturesDistance
AskPDF