Danishjeet Singh

Zoher Kachwala, Danishjeet Singh, Danielle Yang et al.

As AI models generate increasingly realistic images, growing concerns over potential misuse underscore the need for reliable detection. Traditional supervised detection methods depend on large, curated datasets for training and often fail to generalize to novel, out-of-domain image generators. As an alternative, we explore pre-trained Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for zero-shot detection of AI-generated images. We evaluate VLM performance on three diverse benchmarks encompassing synthetic images of human faces, objects, and animals produced by 16 different state-of-the-art image generators. While off-the-shelf VLMs perform poorly on these datasets, we find that their reasoning can be guided effectively through simple response prefilling -- a method we call Prefill-Guided Thinking (PGT). In particular, prefilling a VLM response with the task-aligned phrase "Let's examine the style and the synthesis artifacts" improves the Macro F1 scores of three widely used open-source VLMs by up to 24%.

Kai-Cheng Yang, Danishjeet Singh, Filippo Menczer

Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have raised concerns about their potential to create convincing fake social media accounts, but empirical evidence is lacking. In this paper, we present a systematic analysis of Twitter (X) accounts using human faces generated by Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) for their profile pictures. We present a dataset of 1,420 such accounts and show that they are used to spread scams, spam, and amplify coordinated messages, among other inauthentic activities. Leveraging a feature of GAN-generated faces -- consistent eye placement -- and supplementing it with human annotation, we devise an effective method for identifying GAN-generated profiles in the wild. Applying this method to a random sample of active Twitter users, we estimate a lower bound for the prevalence of profiles using GAN-generated faces between 0.021% and 0.044% -- around 10K daily active accounts. These findings underscore the emerging threats posed by multimodal generative AI. We release the source code of our detection method and the data we collect to facilitate further investigation. Additionally, we provide practical heuristics to assist social media users in recognizing such accounts.

Danishjeet Singh, Anindya Mondal, Filippo Menczer

Political discourse on social media has grown increasingly toxic, with electoral periods amplifying partisan hostility and cross-group attacks. Yet it remains unclear whether toxicity in online political speech reflects how partisans communicate within their own circles, or how aggressively they engage with the opposition. Disentangling these dynamics is critical for understanding online political hostility and for designing effective content moderation. We examine this question at scale using a large collection of original posts and replies from X (formerly Twitter), collected during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Using a human-validated large language model to classify the political alignment of posts and users, and the Perspective API for toxicity scoring, we uncover a striking asymmetry: Republican-leaning posts are significantly more toxic than Democratic-leaning posts, yet Democratic-leaning posts attract significantly more toxic replies. To interpret this finding, we compare the toxicity of same-party and cross-partisan replies. While cross-partisan replies are slightly but significantly more toxic than same-party replies, this is true for both Democratic and Republican posts. However, Republican users account for a large majority of replies to Democratic posts, while Democrats account for a minority of replies to Republican content. Therefore, the elevated toxicity directed at Democratic content is better explained by the volume of Republican cross-partisan replies.