Luca Luceri

Bijean Ghafouri, Dorsaf Sallami, Luca Luceri et al.

Research on misinformation has focused almost exclusively on supply, asking what falsehoods circulate, who produces them, and whether corrections work. A basic demand-side question remains unanswered. When ordinary people can fact-check anything they want, what do they actually ask about? We provide the first large-scale evidence on this question by analyzing close to 2{,}500 statements submitted by 457 participants to an open-ended AI fact-checking system. Each claim is classified along five semantic dimensions (domain, epistemic form, verifiability, target entity, and temporal reference), producing a behavioral map of public verification demand. Three findings stand out. First, users range widely across topics but default to a narrow epistemic repertoire, overwhelmingly submitting simple descriptive claims about present-day observables. Second, roughly one in four requests concerns statements that cannot be empirically resolved, including moral judgments, speculative predictions, and subjective evaluations, revealing a systematic mismatch between what users seek from fact-checking tools and what such tools can deliver. Third, comparison with the FEVER benchmark dataset exposes sharp structural divergences across all five dimensions, indicating that standard evaluation corpora encode a synthetic claim environment that does not resemble real-world verification needs. These results reframe fact-checking as a demand-driven problem and identify where current AI systems and benchmarks are misaligned with the uncertainty people actually experience.

Zhiyi Chen, Eun Cheol Choi, Yingjia Luo et al.

People increasingly seek advice online from both human peers and large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. Such advice rarely involves identifying a single correct answer; instead, it typically requires navigating trade-offs among competing values. We aim to characterize how LLMs navigate value trade-offs across different advice-seeking contexts. First, we examine the value trade-off structure underlying advice seeking using a curated dataset from four advice-oriented subreddits. Using a bottom-up approach, we inductively construct a hierarchical value framework by aggregating fine-grained values extracted from individual advice options into higher-level value categories. We construct value co-occurrence networks to characterize how values co-occur within dilemmas and find substantial heterogeneity in value trade-off structures across advice-seeking contexts: a women-focused subreddit exhibits the highest network density, indicating more complex value conflicts; women's, men's, and friendship-related subreddits exhibit highly correlated value-conflict patterns centered on security-related tensions (security vs. respect/connection/commitment); by contrast, career advice forms a distinct structure where security frequently clashes with self-actualization and growth. We then evaluate LLM value preferences against these dilemmas and find that, across models and contexts, LLMs consistently prioritize values related to Exploration & Growth over Benevolence & Connection. This systemically skewed value orientation highlights a potential risk of value homogenization in AI-mediated advice, raising concerns about how such systems may shape decision-making and normative outcomes at scale.

Philipp Eibl, Erica Coppolillo, Simone Mungari et al.

Online encyclopedias are central to contemporary information infrastructures and have become focal points of debates over ideological bias. Wikipedia, in particular, has long been accused of left-leaning bias, while Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia launched by xAI, has been framed as a right-leaning alternative. This paper presents a comparative analysis of Wikipedia and Grokipedia on well-established politically contested topics. Specifically, we examine differences in semantic framing, political orientation, and content prioritization. We find that semantic similarity between the two platforms decays across article sections and diverges more strongly on controversial topics than on randomly sampled ones. Additionally, we show that both encyclopedias predominantly exhibit left-leaning framings, although Grokipedia exhibits a more bimodal distribution with increased prominence of right-leaning content. The experimental code is publicly available.