Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.33950

"Is This Book AI-Generated?" How Authorship Suspicion Manifests in Marketplace Reviews

Victor Dibia
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As AI becomes part of how books are authored, reader response to suspected AI authorship grows more consequential, yet remains unexamined. We analyze 863 low-star reviews of 78 Amazon bestsellers across 8 categories at three levels of proximity to AI. Suspicion concentrates in Generative AI books (35.1%) but appears in every category, including Gardening (5.7%). Reviews citing AI authorship complain more about shallow content and poor presentation than other critical reviews. Suspicion takes two forms: ambient, where "AI-generated" is a generic complaint about formulaic writing, and corroborated, where reviewers of the same book independently cite concrete evidence. We propose two mechanisms by which suspicion arises: topical concentration, where a book's AI subject matter supplies vocabulary for quality complaints, and artifact detection, where readers notice ChatGPT-style formatting regardless of topic. Star ratings can hide this suspicion: the most-flagged book holds 4.1 stars while 50% of its critical reviews cite AI authorship.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Victor Dibia. 2026-09-27. "Is This Book AI-Generated?" How Authorship Suspicion Manifests in Marketplace Reviews. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.33950

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Beyond Judgment: Exploring Large Language Models as Non-Judgmental Support for Maternal Mental Health

In the age of Large Language Models (LLMs), much work has already been done on how LLMs support medication advice and serve as information providers; however, how mothers use these tools for emotional and informational support to avoid social judgment remains underexplored. This study conducted a 10-day mixed-methods exploratory survey ($N=107$) to investigate how mothers use LLMs as a non-judgmental resource for emotional support and regulation, and for situational reassurance. Our findings show that mothers are asking LLMs various questions about childcare to reassure themselves and avoid judgment, particularly around childcare decisions, maternal guilt, and late-night caregiving. Open-ended responses also show that mothers are comfortable with LLMs because they do not have to think about social consequences or judgment. Although mothers use LLMs for quick information or reassurance to avoid judgment, over half of the participants value human warmth more than LLMs; however, a significant minority, especially those in joint families, consider LLMs to avoid human judgment. These findings help understand how LLMs can be framed as low-risk interaction support rather than a replacement for human support, and highlight the role of social context in shaping emotional technology use.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Avoiding Social Judgment, Seeking Privacy: Investigating why Mothers Shift from Facebook Groups to Large Language Models

Social media platforms, especially Facebook parenting groups, have long been used as informal support networks for mothers seeking advice and reassurance. However, growing concerns about social judgment, privacy exposure, and unreliable information are changing how mothers seek help. This exploratory mixed-method study examines why mothers are moving from Facebook parenting groups to large language models such as ChatGPT and Gemini. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 109 mothers. Results show that 41.3% of participants avoided Facebook parenting groups because they expected judgment from others. This difference was statistically significant across location and family structure. Mothers living in their home country and those in joint families were more likely to avoid Facebook groups. Qualitative findings revealed three themes: social judgment and exposure, LLMs as safe and private spaces, and quick and structured support. Participants described LLMs as immediate, emotionally safe, and reliable alternatives that reduce social risk when asking for help. Rather than replacing human support, LLMs appear to fill emotional and practical gaps within existing support systems. These findings show a change in maternal digital support and highlight the need to design LLM systems that support both information and emotional safety.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Learning to Assign Prediction Tasks to Agents with Capacity Constraints

We address the problem of learning to assign prediction tasks to one agent from a set of available agents, including human decision-makers and AI models. We focus on sequential learning of agent expertise and assignment policies where each agent is constrained to handle a fraction of tasks. We provide a general theoretical characterization of this problem in terms of agent capacities, differences in agent expertise, and task context. We then develop a framework of sequential explore-exploit policy-learning algorithms that seek to maximize overall performance. Experimental results over a variety of tabular, image, and text prediction tasks demonstrate systematic gains from our policy-learning algorithms relative to non-contextual baselines across different types of agents, including LLMs and humans.

cs.HC↗