The recent advances in large language models (LLMs) attracted significant public and policymaker interest in its adoption patterns. In this paper, we systematically analyze LLM-assisted writing across four domains-consumer complaints, corporate communications, job postings, and international organization press releases-from January 2022 to September 2024. Our dataset includes 687,241 consumer complaints, 537,413 corporate press releases, 304.3 million job postings, and 15,919 United Nations (UN) press releases. Using a robust population-level statistical framework, we find that LLM usage surged following the release of ChatGPT in November 2022. By late 2024, roughly 18% of financial consumer complaint text appears to be LLM-assisted, with adoption patterns spread broadly across regions and slightly higher in urban areas. For corporate press releases, up to 24% of the text is attributable to LLMs. In job postings, LLM-assisted writing accounts for just below 10% in small firms, and is even more common among younger firms. UN press releases also reflect this trend, with nearly 14% of content being generated or modified by LLMs. Although adoption climbed rapidly post-ChatGPT, growth appears to have stabilized by 2024, reflecting either saturation in LLM adoption or increasing subtlety of more advanced models. Our study shows the emergence of a new reality in which firms, consumers and even international organizations substantially rely on generative AI for communications.

We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM). Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level. We apply this approach to a case study of scientific peer review in AI conferences that took place after the release of ChatGPT: ICLR 2024, NeurIPS 2023, CoRL 2023 and EMNLP 2023. Our results suggest that between 6.5% and 16.9% of text submitted as peer reviews to these conferences could have been substantially modified by LLMs, i.e. beyond spell-checking or minor writing updates. The circumstances in which generated text occurs offer insight into user behavior: the estimated fraction of LLM-generated text is higher in reviews which report lower confidence, were submitted close to the deadline, and from reviewers who are less likely to respond to author rebuttals. We also observe corpus-level trends in generated text which may be too subtle to detect at the individual level, and discuss the implications of such trends on peer review. We call for future interdisciplinary work to examine how LLM use is changing our information and knowledge practices.

Scientific publishing lays the foundation of science by disseminating research findings, fostering collaboration, encouraging reproducibility, and ensuring that scientific knowledge is accessible, verifiable, and built upon over time. Recently, there has been immense speculation about how many people are using large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in their academic writing, and to what extent this tool might have an effect on global scientific practices. However, we lack a precise measure of the proportion of academic writing substantially modified or produced by LLMs. To address this gap, we conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals, using a population-level statistical framework to measure the prevalence of LLM-modified content over time. Our statistical estimation operates on the corpus level and is more robust than inference on individual instances. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers (up to 17.5%). In comparison, Mathematics papers and the Nature portfolio showed the least LLM modification (up to 6.3%). Moreover, at an aggregate level, our analysis reveals that higher levels of LLM-modification are associated with papers whose first authors post preprints more frequently, papers in more crowded research areas, and papers of shorter lengths. Our findings suggests that LLMs are being broadly used in scientific writings.