Does the public comment system have an AI problem?

"Due to the volume and nature of these submissions, South Coast AQMD had concerns about their authenticity. The agency reached out to a small sample of commenters—172 people—to confirm that they'd actually sent the emails. Almost no one responded. But of the five people who did, three of them said that they didn't know anything about the comments that had been submitted in their own names."

"The L.A. Times recently reported that CiviClick, a company that bills itself as a provider of 'AI-powered advocacy tools,' had led the campaign to send opposition comments. The client was a public affairs consultant with ties to the gas industry. CiviClick denies that it sent any email without consent or that it used AI to fabricate automated messages."

"If AI can now easily impersonate humans—and if comments can be submitted without someone's knowledge—how can government agencies actually know when a public comment was written by a citizen rather than a bot? Fake comments aren't new, but the scale and sophistication of potential manipulation has increased significantly."

A Southern California air quality agency received 20,000 opposition comments to a proposed heat pump rule, far exceeding typical response volumes. Investigation revealed that many comments were likely fabricated or submitted without consent. When the agency contacted 172 commenters to verify authenticity, almost none responded. Of the few who did respond, three denied sending the emails attributed to them. A separate Sierra Club investigation found similar results. The L.A. Times reported that CiviClick, an AI-powered advocacy company with ties to the gas industry, orchestrated the campaign. CiviClick denies fabricating messages or sending emails without consent. The incident highlights a critical challenge: government agencies struggle to distinguish between genuine citizen comments and AI-generated or fraudulently submitted ones in public comment periods.

Read at Fast Company