Artificial Allies: Validation of Synthetic Text for Peer Support Tools through Data Augmentation in NLP Model Development.

This study investigates the potential of using synthetic text to augment training data for Natural Language Processing (NLP) models, specifically within the context of peer support tools. We surveyed 22 participants-13 professional peer supporters and 9 AI-proficient individuals-tasked with distinguishing between AI-generated and human-written sentences. Using signal detection theory and confidence-based metrics, we evaluated the accuracy and confidence levels of both groups. The results show no significant differences in rater agreement between the two groups (p = 0.116), with overall classification accuracy falling below chance levels (mean accuracy = 43.10%, p < 0.001). Both groups exhibited a tendency to misclassify low-fidelity sentences as AI-generated, with peer supporters showing a significant bias (p = 0.007). Further analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between errors and confidence among AI-proficient raters (r = -0.429, p < 0.001), suggesting that as their confidence increased, their error rates decreased. Our findings support the feasibility of using synthetic text to mimic human communication, with important implications for improving the fidelity of peer support interventions through NLP model development.