arXiv AI By Soham De, Isaac Slaughter, Jiawei Guo, Qiao-Yun Cheng, Jiayuan Yan, Sruti Banerjee, Martin Saveski

How Human Feedback Shapes AI-generated Community Notes

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 30905v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
3d ago

Community-Driven API and AI Writer Design for Openly Scaling Community Notes

The article describes the design, operation, and impact of the Community-Driven API and AI Writer for Openly Scaling Community Notes on X. It explains how the AI Note Writer API, launched in September 2025, allows AI to propose notes while users retain control over which notes are shown, and highlights that the Community Writer—an open‑source client—generates 52% of notes deemed helpful and is faster than other writers. The study shows AI notes complement human contributions, covering 42% of posts with helpful notes that have no human alternative, and 30% of posts with only human notes, indicating a synergistic relationship. "whyItMatters":"The work demonstrates how an open, community‑driven AI API can scale content moderation and enrichment on a social platform while preserving user control and complementing human effort."

By Brad Miller, Jay Baxter, Jiansong Chao, Keith Coleman, Sophie Hilgard, Daniel Ortiz
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 2

Gaming Consensus: Coordinated Manipulation in Crowdsourced Fact-Checking

Crowdsourced fact-checking systems have been adopted by major social media companies such as X, Meta, TikTok and Google with the aim of combating misleading information at scale without relying on centralized editorial control. These systems have been developed around a common underlying concept: a bridging mechanism that identifies notes flagging misleading information when they receive support from people with different perspectives rather than simple majority support.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 3

Gaming Consensus: Coordinated Manipulation in Crowdsourced Fact-Checking

arXiv:2607. 01824v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Crowdsourced fact-checking systems have been adopted by major social media companies such as X, Meta, TikTok and Google with the aim of combating misleading information at scale without relying on centralized editorial control.

By Nikil Roashan Selvam, Jay Baxter, Sophie Hilgard, Brad Miller, Keith Coleman, Ellen Vitercik, Sanmi Koyejo
arXiv AI
Jun 24

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews.

By Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan, Nihar B Shah, Danish Pruthi
arXiv AI
Aug 28

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.

By Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Yanming Wan, Ibrahim Qureshi, Joel Z. Leibo, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Natasha Jaques
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 25

Why Does Misinformation Propagate Faster? An Algorithmic Perspective on X

The paper investigates why misinformation spreads more quickly on engagement‑based platforms by dissecting the recommendation algorithm of X. It identifies an engagement fungibility mechanism that rewards instant reactions (likes, retweets) over thoughtful engagement (replies, quotes), allowing misinformation—which tends to attract instant reactions—to receive more recommendations. The authors validate this mechanism through a simulation on the USC X 2024 election corpus, showing that adjusting metric weights has little effect, while requiring thoughtful engagement before amplification can significantly reduce the credibility exposure gap without harming mainstream content or engagement.

By Pan Li, Shuang Gao