Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This arXiv survey of 155 NLP researchers finds that 44% have seen LLM-generated text in crowdsourced free-text data, and that half of those surveyed were unsure how to respond. The most common detection methods are stylistic patterns and unusually fast completion times, which are heuristics rather than reliable tests. For AI researchers, the takeaway is that LLMs are degrading the validity of human-generated training and evaluation data, and current mitigations are not yet sufficient.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Can Crowdsourcing Survive the LLM Era? A Community Survey on Human Data Collection

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2606.04924v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The widespread use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as writing tools challenges the validity of crowdsourced data, as crowdworkers may outsource tasks to models. To better understand how this is addressed, we surveyed 155 researchers in NLP and related disciplines about their experiences and opinions on collecting free-text responses via crowdsourcing. This paper provides an overview of practitioners' challenges, mitigation strategies, and the foreseen implications on data quality. 44% of respondents reported observing LLM usage in their crowdsourced data. While 93% of them had anticipated this, half were unsure what precautions to take. The most prevalent detection strategies are distinctive textual style patterns and unusually fast completion times. Overall, survey responses show that the research community is aware of the problem and taking measures, but existing efforts remain insufficient to fully address it. Finally, we derive a set of considerations to guide future crowdsourced free-text data collection in the era of LLMs.

Title:Can Crowdsourcing Survive the LLM Era? A Community Survey on Human Data Collection

Abstract:The widespread use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as writing tools challenges the validity of crowdsourced data, as crowdworkers may outsource tasks to models. To better understand how this is addressed, we surveyed 155 researchers in NLP and related disciplines about their experiences and opinions on collecting free-text responses via crowdsourcing. This paper provides an overview of practitioners' challenges, mitigation strategies, and the foreseen implications on data quality. 44% of respondents reported observing LLM usage in their crowdsourced data. While 93% of them had anticipated this, half were unsure what precautions to take. The most prevalent detection strategies are distinctive textual style patterns and unusually fast completion times. Overall, survey responses show that the research community is aware of the problem and taking measures, but existing efforts remain insufficient to fully address it. Finally, we derive a set of considerations to guide future crowdsourced free-text data collection in the era of LLMs.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2606.04924 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2606.04924v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.04924 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 258 words

Related coverage