Emilio Ferrara
Publications
What do people want to fact-check?
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.
Harm in AI-Driven Societies: An Audit of Toxicity Adoption on Chirper.ai
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in autonomous agents that engage, converse, and co-evolve in online social platforms. While prior work has documented the generation of toxic content by LLMs, far less is known about how exposure to harmful content shapes agent behavior over time, particularly in environments composed entirely of interacting AI agents. In this work, we study toxicity adoption of LLM-driven agents on Chirper.ai, a fully AI-driven social platform. Specifically, we model interactions in terms of stimuli (posts) and responses (comments). We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of agent behavior, examining how toxic responses relate to toxic stimuli, how repeated exposure to toxicity affects the likelihood of toxic responses, and whether toxic behavior can be predicted from exposure alone. Our findings show that toxic responses are more likely following toxic stimuli, and, at the same time, cumulative toxic exposure (repeated over time) significantly increases the probability of toxic responding. We further introduce two influence metrics, revealing a strong negative correlation between induced and spontaneous toxicity. Finally, we show that the number of toxic stimuli alone enables accurate prediction of whether an agent will eventually produce toxic content. These results highlight exposure as a critical risk factor in the deployment of LLM agents, particularly as such agents operate in online environments where they may engage not only with other AI chatbots, but also with human counterparts. This could trigger unwanted and pernicious phenomena, such as hate-speech propagation and cyberbullying. In an effort to reduce such risks, monitoring exposure to toxic content may provide a lightweight yet effective mechanism for auditing and mitigating harmful behavior in the wild.
Gendered Pathways in AI Companionship: Cross-Community Behavior and Toxicity Patterns on Reddit
AI-companionship platforms are rapidly reshaping how people form emotional, romantic, and parasocial bonds with non-human agents, raising new questions about how these relationships intersect with gendered online behavior and exposure to harmful content. Focusing on the MyBoyfriendIsAI (MBIA) subreddit, we reconstruct the Reddit activity histories of more than 3,000 highly engaged users over two years, yielding over 67,000 historical submissions. We then situate MBIA within a broader ecosystem by building a historical interaction network spanning more than 2,000 subreddits, which enables us to trace cross-community pathways and measure how toxicity and emotional expression vary across these trajectories. We find that MBIA users primarily traverse four surrounding community spheres (AI-companionship, porn-related, forum-like, and gaming) and that participation across the ecosystem exhibits a distinct gendered structure, with substantial engagement by female users. While toxicity is generally low across most pathways, we observe localized spikes concentrated in a small subset of AI-porn and gender-oriented communities. Nearly 16% of users engage with gender-focused subreddits, and their trajectories display systematically different patterns of emotional expression and elevated toxicity, suggesting that a minority of gendered pathways may act as toxicity amplifiers within the broader AI-companionship ecosystem. These results characterize the gendered structure of cross-community participation around AI companionship on Reddit and highlight where risks concentrate, informing measurement, moderation, and design practices for human-AI relationship platforms.