Large language models (LLMs) have shown significant potential to change how we write, communicate, and create, leading to rapid adoption across society. This dissertation examines how individuals and institutions are adapting to and engaging with this emerging technology through three research directions. First, I demonstrate how the institutional adoption of AI detectors introduces systematic biases, particularly disadvantaging writers of non-dominant language varieties, highlighting critical equity concerns in AI governance. Second, I present novel population-level algorithmic approaches that measure the increasing adoption of LLMs across writing domains, revealing consistent patterns of AI-assisted content in academic peer reviews, scientific publications, consumer complaints, corporate communications, job postings, and international organization press releases. Finally, I investigate LLMs' capability to provide feedback on research manuscripts through a large-scale empirical analysis, offering insights into their potential to support researchers who face barriers in accessing timely manuscript feedback, particularly early-career researchers and those from under-resourced settings.

With the rise of advanced natural language models like GPT, distinguishing between human-written and GPT-generated text has become increasingly challenging and crucial across various domains, including academia. The long-standing issue of plagiarism has grown more pressing, now compounded by concerns about the authenticity of information, as it is not always clear whether the presented facts are genuine or fabricated. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of feature extraction and analysis for differentiating between human-written and GPT-generated text. By applying machine learning classifiers to these extracted features, we evaluate the significance of each feature in detection. Our results demonstrate that human and GPT-generated texts exhibit distinct writing styles, which can be effectively captured by our features. Given sufficiently long text, the two can be differentiated with high accuracy.

Weaknesses: I have no major concerns, but only remarks and suggestions for improvements. Although this is unambiguous in the experimental section, the abstract and introduction should clarify that the method is self-supervised from stereo pairs. There is a lot of confusion in the literature, because all monocular methods predict depth from a single image (by definition) but can be trained in different ways: from lidar supervision (full or partial), from stereo pairs (as is the case here), or from videos (a.k.a. Some of the authors' critique of related works (e.g., regarding dynamic objects) are only applicable to the SfM self-supervised scenario, as in the case of stereo-based self-supervised learning pairs of images are captured at the same time. Furthermore, the SfM case requires estimating the camera's ego-motion, which vastly complicates the self-supervised learning task (hence why the comparison is not entirely fair in my opinion).

The progress in text summarization techniques has been remarkable. However the task of accurately extracting and summarizing necessary information from highly specialized documents such as research papers has not been sufficiently investigated. We are focusing on the task of extracting research questions (RQ) from research papers and construct a new dataset consisting of machine learning papers, RQ extracted from these papers by GPT-4, and human evaluations of the extracted RQ from multiple perspectives. Using this dataset, we systematically compared recently proposed LLM-based evaluation functions for summarizations, and found that none of the functions showed sufficiently high correlations with human evaluations. We expect our dataset provides a foundation for further research on developing better evaluation functions tailored to the RQ extraction task, and contribute to enhance the performance of the task. The dataset is available at https://github.com/auto-res/PaperRQ-HumanAnno-Dataset.