Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing

With a statistical analysis of arXiv paper abstracts, we report a marked drop in the frequency of several words previously identified as overused by ChatGPT, such as "delve", starting soon after they were pointed out in early 2024. The frequency of certain other words favored by ChatGPT, such as "significant", has instead kept increasing. These phenomena suggest that some authors of academic papers have adapted their use of large language models (LLMs), for example, by selecting outputs or applying modifications to the LLM-generated content. Such coevolution and cooperation of humans and LLMs thus introduce additional challenges to the detection of machine-generated text in real-world scenarios. Estimating the impact of LLMs on academic writing by examining word frequency remains feasible, and more attention should be paid to words that were already frequently employed, including those that have decreased in frequency.

The Impact of Large Language Models in Academia: from Writing to Speaking

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly impacting human society, particularly in textual information. Based on more than 30,000 papers and 1,000 presentations from machine learning conferences, we examined and compared the words used in writing and speaking, representing the first large-scale investigating study of how LLMs influence the two main modes of verbal communication and expression within the same group of people. Our empirical results show that LLM-style words such as "significant" have been used more frequently in abstracts and oral presentations. The impact on speaking is beginning to emerge and is likely to grow in the future, calling attention to the implicit influence and ripple effect of LLMs on human society.

Are Large Language Models Chameleons?

Do large language models (LLMs) have their own worldviews and personality tendencies? Simulations in which an LLM was asked to answer subjective questions were conducted more than 1 million times. Comparison of the responses from different LLMs with real data from the European Social Survey (ESS) suggests that the effect of prompts on bias and variability is fundamental, highlighting major cultural, age, and gender biases. Methods for measuring the difference between LLMs and survey data are discussed, such as calculating weighted means and a new proposed measure inspired by Jaccard similarity. We conclude that it is important to analyze the robustness and variability of prompts before using LLMs to model individual decisions or collective behavior, as their imitation abilities are approximate at best.

Is ChatGPT Transforming Academics' Writing Style?

Based on one million arXiv papers submitted from May 2018 to January 2024, we assess the textual density of ChatGPT's writing style in their abstracts by means of a statistical analysis of word frequency changes. Our model is calibrated and validated on a mixture of real abstracts and ChatGPT-modified abstracts (simulated data) after a careful noise analysis. We find that ChatGPT is having an increasing impact on arXiv abstracts, especially in the field of computer science, where the fraction of ChatGPT-revised abstracts is estimated to be approximately 35%, if we take the output of one of the simplest prompts, "revise the following sentences", as a baseline. We conclude with an analysis of both positive and negative aspects of the penetration of ChatGPT into academics' writing style.