Computational Turing Test Reveals Systematic Differences Between Human and AI Language

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the social sciences to simulate human behavior, based on the assumption that they can generate realistic, human-like text. Yet this assumption remains largely untested. Existing validation efforts rely heavily on human-judgment-based evaluations -- testing whether humans can distinguish AI from human output -- despite evidence that such judgments are blunt and unreliable. As a result, the field lacks robust tools for assessing the realism of LLM-generated text or for calibrating models to real-world data. This paper makes two contributions. First, we introduce a computational Turing test: a validation framework that integrates aggregate metrics (BERT-based detectability and semantic similarity) with interpretable linguistic features (stylistic markers and topical patterns) to assess how closely LLMs approximate human language within a given dataset. Second, we systematically compare nine open-weight LLMs across five calibration strategies -- including fine-tuning, stylistic prompting, and context retrieval -- benchmarking their ability to reproduce user interactions on X (formerly Twitter), Bluesky, and Reddit. Our findings challenge core assumptions in the literature. Even after calibration, LLM outputs remain clearly distinguishable from human text, particularly in affective tone and emotional expression. Instruction-tuned models underperform their base counterparts, and scaling up model size does not enhance human-likeness. Crucially, we identify a trade-off: optimizing for human-likeness often comes at the cost of semantic fidelity, and vice versa. These results provide a much-needed scalable framework for validation and calibration in LLM simulations -- and offer a cautionary note about their current limitations in capturing human communication.

A Classification of Feedback Loops and Their Relation to Biases in Automated Decision-Making Systems

Prediction-based decision-making systems are becoming increasingly prevalent in various domains. Previous studies have demonstrated that such systems are vulnerable to runaway feedback loops, e.g., when police are repeatedly sent back to the same neighborhoods regardless of the actual rate of criminal activity, which exacerbate existing biases. In practice, the automated decisions have dynamic feedback effects on the system itself that can perpetuate over time, making it difficult for short-sighted design choices to control the system's evolution. While researchers started proposing longer-term solutions to prevent adverse outcomes (such as bias towards certain groups), these interventions largely depend on ad hoc modeling assumptions and a rigorous theoretical understanding of the feedback dynamics in ML-based decision-making systems is currently missing. In this paper, we use the language of dynamical systems theory, a branch of applied mathematics that deals with the analysis of the interconnection of systems with dynamic behaviors, to rigorously classify the different types of feedback loops in the ML-based decision-making pipeline. By reviewing existing scholarly work, we show that this classification covers many examples discussed in the algorithmic fairness community, thereby providing a unifying and principled framework to study feedback loops. By qualitative analysis, and through a simulation example of recommender systems, we show which specific types of ML biases are affected by each type of feedback loop. We find that the existence of feedback loops in the ML-based decision-making pipeline can perpetuate, reinforce, or even reduce ML biases.