Science Written by Generative AI is Perceived as Less Intelligent, but More Credible and Trustworthy than Science Written by Humans

This paper evaluated the effectiveness of using generative AI to simplify science communication and enhance public trust in science. By comparing lay summaries of journal articles from PNAS, yoked to those generated by AI, this work assessed linguistic simplicity across such summaries and public perceptions. Study 1a analyzed simplicity features of PNAS abstracts (scientific summaries) and significance statements (lay summaries), observing that lay summaries were indeed linguistically simpler, but effect size differences were small. Study 1b used GPT-4 to create significance statements based on paper abstracts and this more than doubled the average effect size without fine-tuning. Finally, Study 2 experimentally demonstrated that simply-written GPT summaries facilitated more favorable public perceptions of scientists (their credibility, trustworthiness) than more complexly-written human PNAS summaries. AI has the potential to engage scientific communities and the public via a simple language heuristic, advocating for its integration into scientific dissemination for a more informed society.