Charles Darwin University research shows AI-written news is more uniform, less creative
New research from Charles Darwin University has found clear stylistic differences between journalism written by humans and by artificial intelligence, suggesting that while AI-generated news is readable, it lacks the creative variation that characterises human reporting.
The study, led by Van Hieu Tran as part of a Master’s degree in Information Technology, analysed 150 articles from outlets including the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian. The team used Google’s Gemini chatbot to produce AI-generated versions of the same stories, then compared the outputs for structure and style.
“The research shows that while AI-generated content is becoming more sophisticated each day, there are still subtle stylistic differences,” said Tran. Human-written articles varied more in sentence and paragraph length and used a more dynamic mix of verbs and nouns. AI outputs, by contrast, were more repetitive in structure and tended to rely heavily on nouns.
Tran said both types of writing scored similarly for readability, but human journalism displayed more “stylistic diversity and writers’ unique flair”. AI-generated stories, he concluded, were “more boring”.
Dr Yakub Sebastian, who supervised the project, said the findings raised wider questions about creativity and engagement in journalism. “There is also a deeper question as to whether it matters whether we could distinguish AI versus human writers beyond the issue of attribution or originality—especially if all facts in the news are equally accurate,” he said.
The study also touched on the risks of bias in AI output and the difficulty of detecting algorithmically generated stories as models become more advanced. “AI models advance at a breakneck speed,” said Sebastian, “and we see them increasingly capable of doing what humans can do.”
The authors suggested their findings could be used to develop detection tools, such as a browser plug-in modelled on Turnitin, to help readers or publishers identify AI-written articles.
The paper, Distinguishing Human Journalists from Artificial Storytellers Through Stylistic Fingerprints, appears in the latest issue of Emerging Trends in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, published by Computers.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://www.miragenews.com/ai-vs-journalist-study-shows-news-style-1441283/ – This article supports the research findings on stylistic differences between journalist-written and AI-generated news articles, including the use of more verbs by humans and more nouns by AI.
- https://www.miragenews.com/ai-vs-journalist-study-shows-news-style-1441283/ – It also highlights concerns about AI biases in news and the proposed development of tools to distinguish AI-generated content from human writing.
- https://www.cdu.edu.au/news/new-paper-suggests-how-universities-can-regain-control-education-ai – Although not directly related to the specific research, this article mentions Charles Darwin University’s involvement in studies related to AI, emphasizing the importance of maintaining academic integrity and ethical AI use.
- https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=437da967-f445-4d4b-beed-269ccfd5615d&subId=745939 – This document highlights Charles Darwin University’s focus on addressing the implications of generative AI in education, though it does not directly address journalist versus AI writing differences.
- https://www.miragenews.com/ai-vs-journalist-study-shows-news-style-1441283/ – The research’s potential for practical applications, such as developing machine learning tools to identify AI-generated content, is also discussed.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative refers to recent research published in Emerging Trends in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, indicating it is relatively current. However, no specific date is mentioned, which might reduce its timeliness slightly.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The quotes from researchers like Van Hieu Tran and Dr Yakub Sebastian appear to be original to this context. However, they could not be verified as the first usage online due to limited search results.
Source reliability
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative originates from a study conducted by Charles Darwin University, a reputable academic institution. It references well-known publications like the New York Times, which adds to its reliability.
Plausability check
Score:
8.5
Notes:
The claims about the research findings align with current trends in AI vs. human content creation. However, some assertions about future applications could be speculative, though plausible.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative presents well-researched and plausible information, backed by credible sources and recent findings. However, the quotes’ originality and the narrative’s exact publication date could not be fully verified.
Register for Editor’s picks
Stay ahead of the curve with our Editor's picks newsletter – your weekly insight into the trends, challenges, and innovations driving the future of digital media.
