Characterizing AI Fact-Checkers and Their Contributions on Community Notes

TL;DR

This study empirically analyzes AI fact-checkers on Community Notes, revealing their increasing contribution, responsiveness, and mixed veracity, with implications for human-AI collaborative fact-checking systems.

Contribution

First empirical analysis of AI fact-checkers' contributions, responsiveness, and accuracy on Community Notes, highlighting their growing role and limitations in automated fact-checking.

Findings

AI writers account for 14.2% of notes, rising to 44.8% recently.

AI notes are typically submitted within minutes of posts.

AI-generated notes are less helpful than human ones but outperform laypeople.

Abstract

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have made timely, scalable, and effective fact-checking increasingly feasible. One such deployment is X's Community Notes, which provides the AI Note Writer API to enable end-to-end automated generation of contextual information. We present the first empirical analysis of AI fact-checkers and their contributions on Community Notes, examining four key dimensions: volume, velocity, variety, and veracity. We find that, between September 2, 2025 and May 9, 2026, 20 AI writers account for 14.2% of all submitted notes, with their daily share rising rapidly to 44.8% lately. AI writers are highly responsive, typically submitting notes within minutes of posts becoming available via the API. They also expand coverage, contributing notes to 16.8% of fact-checked posts, of which 74.4% are not checked by humans. Over time, AI writers become more prolific and responsive, with increasing coverage and discovery rates. Despite these advantages, their veracity remains mixed. Collectively, AI writers contribute a higher share of helpful notes while receiving a smaller share of human ratings, relative to their share of submitted notes. Controlling for the fact-checked post and note submission order, both AI and human writers exhibit a first-mover advantage, with earlier notes attracting more ratings. More importantly, AI-generated notes are less likely to be classified as helpful than those written by human experts, though they outperform those written by laypeople. Our findings provide new insights into the practical capabilities and limitations of AI-driven fact-checking, with implications for the design and governance of human--AI collaborative crowdsourced context systems.