Algorithmic Comic: Auditing the Collective Authenticity of Political Discourse Generated by Large Models

Core Viewpoints: Researchers constructed a crisis event corpus containing 1.78 million posts, comparing real and AI-generated political discourse from the perspective of computational social science. They found that while AI texts are fluent, they lack collective authenticity (more negative, more regular structures, more abstract words) and proposed the 'Comic Gap' metric to quantify this difference.

The study focuses on the social risks of AI-generated political discourse, breaking through the limitations of traditional single-sentence detection through group-level analysis and providing a new perspective for AI content auditing.

The ability of large language models to generate fluent political texts has raised social concerns—they may be used for disinformation manipulation during crises. Traditional AI text detection focuses on sentence-level features (e.g., perplexity), but the signals weaken as models improve.

Researchers propose a new auditing approach: from the perspective of Computational Social Science (CSS), questioning whether AI-generated political discourse resembles real human online communities at the group level.

1. Corpus Construction

Constructed a paired post corpus of 1.78 million entries, covering 9 major crisis events (COVID-19, Capitol attack, presidential election, etc.), collecting real human discussions and LLM-generated synthetic discourse to form comparative samples.

2. Four-Dimensional Evaluation Framework

Compared differences from four dimensions:

• Emotional intensity: Analyze emotional tendency and distribution
• Structural regularity: Examine sentence length, paragraph organization, etc.
• Lexical-ideological framework: Vocabulary selection and contextual relevance
• Cross-event dependence: Correlation of discourse patterns across different events

Key Findings

1. Emotional Intensity: Synthetic discourse is more negative with smaller emotional distribution dispersion (lacking human emotional diversity)
2. Structural Regularity: Synthetic discourse has more regular structures (standardized grammar, no personalized deviations in human writing)
3. Lexical Features: Synthetic discourse uses more abstract words (general formal vocabulary, lacking context-specific colloquial expressions)
4. Cross-Event Differences: Synthetic discourse has homogeneous cross-event patterns (real discourse is highly event-dependent)

Comic Gap Metric

Proposed the 'Comic Gap' by integrating the four-dimensional differences to quantify the distance between AI and real discourse:

• Events with large gaps: Fast-changing decentralized events (e.g., sudden violence, grassroots protests)
• Events with small gaps: Formal institution-mediated events (e.g., election debates, official statements)

Core Conclusions: The main limitation of synthetic political discourse lies not in grammatical fluency but in the lack of collective authenticity, which is specifically manifested as:

1. Emotional simplification: Concentrated on negativity, no human emotional spectrum
2. Overly regular structure: Too 'perfect', lacking irregularity
3. Decontextualized vocabulary: General and abstract, lacking contextual expressions
4. Homogeneous patterns: Strong consistency across events, no event specificity

Implications for AI Detection

• From individual to group: Focus on group-level anomalies (e.g., concentrated emotional distribution)
• From language to social characteristics: Shift to social behavior features like emotional distribution and interaction patterns
• Dynamic adaptability: Collective authenticity detection is more robust

Significance for Platform Governance

• New dimension of anomaly detection: Monitor anomalies in group behavior patterns
• Event-sensitive strategies: Adopt different monitoring methods for different events
• Human-machine collaborative auditing: Combine AI tools with human social intuition

Research Limitations

1. Linguistic and cultural limitations: Based on English corpus; other language and cultural patterns need verification
2. Model evolution: As models improve, the Comic Gap may narrow
3. Causal inference: Only reveals correlation; needs in-depth analysis of bias mechanisms

Future Directions

• Develop automated detection tools based on the Comic Gap
• Explore fine-tuning/prompt engineering to improve AI's collective authenticity
• Study cross-cultural manifestations of the Comic Gap
• Extend to synthetic content like images and videos