The Impact of AI-Generated Text on the Internet

In less than five years, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has dramatically reshaped the public-facing web. Using a sample of more than 5 million crawlable webpages, we demonstrate that the share containing AI-generated text has increased precipitously, but unevenly. Our analyses reveal substantial differences in AI composition across language and domain categories (e.g., .edu, .com, or .gov). A higher fraction of English-language webpages contain AI-generated text compared to pages in other languages, and prevalence is substantially lower on .gov and .edu domains compared to .com. These distinctions persist even after accounting for compositional effects. We also find heterogeneity based on a page's position in the connectivity structure of the web. AI-generated text is most common and has increased most rapidly in pages that are the least central in the graph, which drives much of the overall growth in AI-generated text. A slower increase has taken place for more central pages, with the most central tier emerging as the least likely to contain AI-generated text. Methodologically, we use multiple AI detection tools, and generate estimates using a Bayesian hierarchical model that incorporates corrections for the detectors' statistical properties (both false positives and false negatives) and allows for different detector performance across groups, while propagating uncertainty in detector error rates into prevalence estimates. Our work suggests that AI is a prominent, but varied, contributor to public information and internet-based communication.

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.

Although it is generally agreed that AI-generated text poses a broad societal risk, there is no common understanding in the AI-generated text detection literature on what constitutes harmful use. Rather, existing datasets and approaches often define their own criteria and make their own assumptions, sometimes implicitly, and often only loosely related to real-world needs and applications. To address this gap, we here systematically define various notions of AI-generated text and their characteristics. To study these, we collect AITDNA - a new benchmark of human-machine co-constructed texts that is annotated with detailed genesis information, such as the entire edit and AI-interaction history. We benchmark various machine-generated text detectors and find that they often only perform well for specific notions but not as broad detectors. We release code and data publicly.