Originality.AI looked at 8,885 long Facebook posts made over the past six years.
Key Findings
- 41.18% of current Facebook long-form posts are Likely AI, as of November 2024.
- Between 2023 and November 2024, the average percentage of monthly AI posts on Facebook was 24.05%.
- This reflects a 4.3x increase in monthly AI Facebook content since the launch of ChatGPT. In comparison, the monthly average was 5.34% from 2018 to 2022.
Probably on par with the junk human users are posting
Hmm, “the junk human users are posting”, or “the human junk users are posting”? We are talking about Facebook here, after all.
Considering that they do automated analysis, 8k posts does not seem like a lot. But still very interesting.
> uses ai slop to illustrate it
That laptop lol.
The most annoying part of that is the shitty render. I actually have an account on one of those AI image generating sites, and I enjoy using it. If you’re not satisfied with the image, just roll a few more times, maybe tweak the prompt or the starter image, and try again. You can get some very cool-looking renders if you give a damn. Case in point:
😍this is awesome!
A friend of mine has made this with your described method:
PS: 😆the laptop on the illustration in the article! Someone did not want pay for high end model and did not want to to take any extra time neither…
Seems like an appropriate use of the tech
8k posts sounds like 0.00014 percent of Facebook posts
It probably is but it’s a large sample size and if the selection is random enough, it’s likely sufficient to extrapolate some numbers. This is basically how drug testing works.
And statistical analysis. The larger the universe, the smaller the true random sample you need
FB has been junk for more than a decade now, AI or no.
I check mine every few weeks because I’m a sports announcer and it’s one way people get in contact with me, but it’s clear that FB designs its feed to piss me off and try to keep me doomscrolling, and I’m not a fan of having my day derailed.
I deleted facebook in like 2010 or so, because i hardly ever used it anyway, it wasn’t really bad back then, just not for me. 6 or so years later a friend of mine wanted to show me something on fb, but couldn’t find it, so he was just scrolling, i was blown away how bad it was, just ads and auto played videos and absolute garbage. And from what i understand, it just got worse and worse. Everyone i know now that uses facebook is for the market place.
It’s such a cesspit.
I’m glad we have the Fediverse.
My brother gave me his Facebook credentials so I could use marketplace without bothering him all the time. He’s been a liberal left-winger all his life but for the past few years he’s taken to ranting about how awful Democrats are (“Genocide Joe” etc.) while mocking people who believe that there’s a connection between Trump and Putin. Sure enough, his Facebook is filled with posts about how awful Democrats are and how there’s no connection between Trump and Putin - like, that’s literally all that’s on there. I’ve tried to get him to see that his worldview is entirely created by Facebook but he just won’t accept it. He thinks that FB is some sort of objective collator of news.
In my mind, this is really what sets social media apart from past mechanisms of social control. In the days of mass media, the propaganda was necessarily a one-size-fits-all sort of thing. Now, the pipeline of bullshit can be custom-tailored for each individual. So my brother, who would never support Trump and the Republicans, can nevertheless be fed a line of bullshit that he will accept and help Trump by not voting (he actually voted Green).
Good on him for not falling for the MAGA bulldust and trying for the third option
The other 60% are old people re-sharing it.
Ok this made me laugh.
6% old people re-sharing. The other 54% were bot accounts.
Well, there’s also 0.1% who are relatives of old people who are tring to keep in touch with the batty old meme-forwarders. I was one of those until the ones who mattered most to me shuffled off this mortal coil.
Keep in mind this is for AI generated TEXT, not the images everyone is talking about in this thread.
Also they used an automated tool, all of which have very high error rates, because detecting AI text is a fundamentally impossible task
AI does give itself away over “longer” posts, and if the tool makes about an equal number of false positives to false negatives then it should even itself out in the long run. (I’d have liked more than 9K “tests” for it to average out, but even so.) If they had the edit history for the post, which they didn’t, then it’s more obvious. AI will either copy-paste the whole thing in in one go, or will generate a word at a time at a fairly constant rate. Humans will stop and think, go back and edit things, all of that.
I was asked to do some job interviews recently; the tech test had such an “animated playback”, and the difference between a human doing it legitimately and someone using AI to copy-paste the answer was surprisingly obvious. The tech test questions were nothing to do with the job role at hand and were causing us to select for the wrong candidates completely, but that’s more a problem with our HR being blindly in love with AI and “technical solutions to human problems”.
“Absolute certainty” is impossible, but balance of probabilities will do if you’re just wanting an estimate like they have here.
I have no idea whether the probabilities are balanced. They claim 5% was AI even before chatgpt was released, which seems pretty off. No one was using LLMs before chatgpt went viral except for researchers.
chat bots have been a thing, for a long time. I mean, a half decently trained Markov can handle social media postings and replies
Chatbots doesn’t mean that they have a real conversation. Some just spammed links from a list of canned responses, or just upvoted the other chat bots to get more visibility, or the just reposted a comment from another user.
Im pretty sure chatbots were a thing before AI. They certainly werent as smart but they did exists.
Yeah. This is a way bigger problem with this article than anything else. The entier thing hinges on their AI-detecting AI working. I have looked into how effective these kinds of tools are because it has come up at my work, and independent review of them suggests they’re, like, 3-5 times worse than the (already pretty bad) accuracy rates they claim, and disproportionatly flag non-native English speakers as AI generated. So, I’m highly skeptical of this claim as well.
this is ai gen so stop it
And 58.82% are likely generated by human junk then.
and, is the jury already in on which ai is most fuckable?
I’d tell you, but my area network appears to have already started blocking DeepSeek.
Deekseek that was not encrypting data
https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/30/deepseek_database_left_open/
This doesn’t have anything to do with encryption. They had a public database (anyone on the internet could query it) and forgot to put a password on it. It really shouldn’t even be public.
According to Wiz, DeepSeek promptly fixed the issue when informed about it.
:-/
Not my Annie! No! Not my Annie!
Take note this does not appear to be an independent study. Tell me I’m wrong?
That’s an extremely low sample size for this
8,855 long-form Facebook posts from various users using a 3rd party. The dataset spans from 2018 to November 2024, with a minimum of 100 posts per month, each containing at least 100 words.
seems like thats a good baseline rule and that was about the total number that matched it
With apparently 3 billion active users
Only summing up 9k posts over a 6 year stretch with over 100 words feels like an outreach problem. Conclusion could be drawn that bots have better reach
each post has to be 100 words with at least 100 posts a month
how many actual users do that?
I have no idea because I don’t use the site
But to say less than 0.0001% just seems hard to believe
I don’t use the site either but 100 words is a lot for a facebook post
deleted by creator
how tf did it take 6 years to analyze 8000 posts
I pretty sure they selected posts from a 6 year period, not that they spent six years on the analysis.
I can’t even fathom how they would go about testing if it’s an AI or not. I can’t imagine that’s an exact science either.
In that case, how/why did they only choose 8000 posts over 6 years? Facebook probably gets more than 8000 new posts per second.
Every study uses sampling. They don’t have the resources to check everything. I have to imagine it took a lot of work to verify conclusively whether something was or was not generated. It’s a much larger sample size than a lot of studies.
I have to imagine it took a lot of work to verify conclusively whether something was or was not generated
The study is by a company that creates software to detect AI content, so it’s literally their whole job
(it also means there’s a conflict of interest, since they want to show how much content their detector can detect)
It’s a much larger sample size than a lot of studies.
It’s an extremely small proportion of the total number of Facebook posts though. Nowhere near enough for statistical significance.
It’s an extremely small proportion of the total number of Facebook posts though. Nowhere near enough for statistical significance.
The proportion of the total population size is almost irrelevant when you use random sampling. It doesn’t rely on examining a large portion of the population, but rather that it becomes increasingly unlikely for the sample set to deviate dramatically from the population size as the number of samples rises. This is a function of the number of samples you take, decoupled from the population size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)
Usually if you see a major poll in a population, it’ll be something like 1k to 2k people who get polled, regardless of the population size.
I was wondering how far I’d have to scroll before getting to someone who doesn’t understand statistics complaining about the sample size…
There’s likely been trillions of posts on Facebook during that time frame. Is a sample size of 8000 really sufficient for a corpus that large?
Have you ever heard of “margin of error”?
Learn statistics, it’s actually super informative.
If you want to visit your old friends in the dying mall. Go to feeds then friends. Should filter everything else out.
