Loading page…
The detector-based estimate suggests AI has become a substantial part of newer online publishing, but it cannot determine the origin of an individual page.
Listen to this story
Pew’s estimate depends heavily on what gets counted: 35% of pages published after ChatGPT’s November 2022 launch showed detector signals of AI authorship or substantial editing, versus about 10% across a mixed-age 10,000-page sample. The analysis covered nearly 500,000 English-language pages and used Open Pangram, which can misclassify human writing.
The 35% figure applies only after pre-November 2022 pages were removed; it is not a measure of the entire web.
.com pages showed signals at roughly 10 times the rate of .edu and .gov pages, each near 1%; .org pages were 4.6%.
Pew identified rising em dashes, Oxford commas, and “it’s not X, it’s Y” phrasing as additional purported AI tells.
Pew Research found significant signs of AI authorship or heavy AI editing on 35% of the English-language web pages in its post-ChatGPT sample. That is not a count of pages written entirely by machines. It is a detector-based estimate of AI’s combined role in drafting and substantially revising newer web content, and Pew says individual pages can be misclassified.
The study starts with ChatGPT’s November 2022 release as its dividing line. Pew analyzed nearly half a million English-language pages from roughly the prior five years, drawn from the Common Crawl web archive. It then used Open Pangram’s technology to identify pages likely written by AI or heavily edited with it.
Pew’s two published percentages answer different questions. A random collection of 10,000 pages gathered in July 2026 included material from across the web’s age range, and about 10% showed significant AI-authorship signs. Once Pew excluded pages published before ChatGPT’s release, the share was 35%. The higher figure therefore describes the analyzed newer-web subset, not the web archive as a whole.
About 10% of the random sample of 10,000 pages collected in July 2026 showed significant signs of AI authorship.
After the pre-ChatGPT pages were excluded, 35% of analyzed pages showed significant signs of AI authorship or editing.
The detected pattern also varied sharply by domain suffix. Pages on .com domains showed AI-authorship signs at roughly 10 times the rate of .edu and .gov pages, which were each around 1%. .org pages registered a 4.6% rate. Those figures describe detected signals by domain type; they do not establish why the rates differ.
Pew identified those as purported tells of AI authorship, alongside the detector results. They add a time-based observation to the study, but they are not a substitute for a direct determination of who wrote any particular page or how much editing an AI system performed.
Pew cautioned that AI detectors such as Pangram can classify human-written pages as AI-written. It nevertheless characterized the large-scale result as directionally reliable. That makes the 35% figure useful as an estimate of a publishing pattern in the sample, while leaving the status of any single flagged page uncertain.
The next question is less whether newer pages bear AI-associated signals than how readers, publishers and search systems will distinguish full generation from substantial revision. Pew’s result makes clear that treating web publishing as a simple human-versus-machine split misses the blended activity its measure is designed to capture.
Loading discussion...
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.