There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

rozodru ,
@rozodru@lemmy.ca avatar

a search bar for your DB doesn’t count guys.

drmoose ,

Lots of misinformation in this thread. Yes they have it, it’s good but it’s probably nowhere close to 99.9% accuracy.

The primary way to detect AI is to inject a fingerprint into AI generation in the first place. This means only the model creators can do that. We don’t exactly know how the fingerprint works but it can be as simple as preferring 1 word synonym over the other. For example preferring word synonyms like “illustrate”, “peer” etc. quickly ads up to a statistical

These techniques pre-date chatgpt itself and do work! However there are a lot of caveats:

  • The fingerprint has to be trained for each model meaning each model version performs slightly differently and only owners know the fingerprint.
  • The fingerprint test can only work on longer bodies of text that are not modified further.
  • Extending model through more complex instructions (like character, tone) or RAG can significantly decrease the effectiveness.

The industry is understandably very secretive about it but your low effort chatgpt copy/paste can be detected by OpenAI and nobody else.

As for public release of the fingerprint: they can’t as it can be reverse engineered so it’s only valuable as an internal tool for now. Also if released it would serve no real purpose as detection can be easily defeated by remixing content to dilute the fingerprint.

EnderMB ,

Agreed. Frankly, if someone were to say “we can detect with 99% accuracy” I imagine that someone would say “well, clearly your measurements are wrong, find the issue and come back to us when it’s fixed”.

conciselyverbose ,

but your low effort chatgpt copy/paste can be detected by OpenAI and nobody else

Low effort copy pastes can absolutely be detected by people who aren’t openAI. The consistent “advanced” vocabulary and excessively formal grammar used correctly, but with clear and significant comprehension gaps are pretty damn consistent. You won’t get perfect reliability, but you’ll catch most of it and you won’t have a huge number of false positives.

Real people don’t sound like GPT.

drmoose ,

No that’s in no way reliable way of catching anyone and I hope people smarten up and avoid this snake oil entirely. I’m borderline jealous how these “ai catchers” are making so much money from straight up snake oil.

conciselyverbose , (edited )

An algorithm can’t.

Plenty of humans absolutely can. LLM writing is genuinely fucking terrible. It has the slightly stilted over formality of most non-native speakers, without the intelligence being fluent in a second language implies.

Flawless grammar with a complete absence of any sign of intelligence is not something you get regularly from humans.

drmoose ,

The “can” is irrelevant here. Checking tool has to be reliable to be useful. What’s the use of having a checker that maybe detects something sometimes somewhat successfully?

conciselyverbose ,

There’s a massive gap between “you can’t make a tool” and “you can’t identify it”.

The problem with a tool is the exact same as the issue with LLMs to begin with. It does not resemble intelligence or comprehension in any way and cannot use it as an indicator.

But the use of LLMs is absolutely identifiable to moderately intelligent humans, because LLM output has raw language skills wildly inconsistent with every other skill that is part of writing.

drmoose ,

What’s even point of your argument? That a detective can figure out who used AI? Yes detectives can figure out most stuff. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand my dude.

conciselyverbose ,

What are you talking about “detectives”?

You said “nobody can identify LLM use” when any moderately intelligent human can identify LLM output pretty easily. It explodes off the page.

drmoose ,

Whatever dude not playing these stupid games. You know exactly what I meant. Go away 👋

conciselyverbose ,

It’s not a game.

Spreading the lie that LLMs are somehow indistinguishable from humans is incredibly harmful. It’s a big part of the reason the obscene waste of energy the entire “force chatbots into everything” space exists.

hendrik , (edited )

That's a bad article. What are they reluctant about? Releasing that detector, or applying watermarks to the generated texts? Do they do that already or doesn't it apply to text generated until then? And how would that affect anything else?

Whats with the error rate? Shouldn't that be near 100% for watermarks? And 0 false positives? What's really holding them back? Is pupils not turning in ChatGPT homework anymore cutting into their business model?

I mean all the major AI companies promised to do AI ethically. Now they don't want the one thing that would solve half the issues people are having with that technology. Kind of fits with OpenAI 🤔

drmoose ,

They can’t release anything as watermarks can be reverse engineered and people would just wise up and tumble the outputs.

Weirdly, not releasing this tool publicly might be the smartest bet here as all of these bot farms and idiots just blindly use chatgpt outputs without any tumbling or safety.

hendrik , (edited )

The issue with that is: Releasing nothing is even worse than releasing something that could be circumvented. I don't see this as a valid argument.

I'm not an expert on text watermarking and how that degrades output. But if they want some stealthy solution that isn't known to the public... Maybe they could attach two watermarks. A simple one that is known to everyone, and an additional, secret one only they know about. It'd be similar to what we do with bank notes. There are some characteristics everyone knows and can use to judge if it's fake money. And they have some additional secret markings in banknotes that only the central bank knows about.

I'm pretty sure a similar thing could be done here. Maybe not for a 280 character tweet. But certainly for other use-cases with longer texts. And in case it has a 0% false positive rate, every match helps someone. Even if it's circumventable. I think even a non-perfect solution that helps several thousands of people is better than helping no-one.

Pika ,
@Pika@sh.itjust.works avatar

I agree with not releasing it, but I do find that it defeats the purpose talking about it because if you have it but aren’t sharing if what’s the point of having it

hendrik ,

I think we're missing half the story. Because I also fail so see a point in doing it like they do.

superkret ,

You can just ask ChatGPT if a text was written by it.
If it is, it’s legally obligated to tell you!

prime_number_314159 ,

Don’t joke about this, the college professors will hear you.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I wonder if this means they’ve discovered a serious flaw that they don’t know how to fix yet?

MagicShel ,

The flaw is in the training to make it corporate friendly. Everything it says eventually sounds like a sexual harassment training video, regardless of subject.

ArbitraryValue ,

I think the more like explanation is that being able to filter out AI-generated text gives them an advantage over their competitors at obtaining more training data.

Etterra ,

If they have one, and that’s IF, then of course they won’t release it. They’re still trying to find a use case for their stupid toy so that they can charge people for it. Releasing the counter agent would be completely contradictory to their business model. It’s like Umbrella Corp. but even dumber.

_sideffect ,

Did they claim it or prove it? I don’t believe anything tech says

expatriado ,

shhh, my professor may use it

PenisDuckCuck9001 ,

My unpopular opinion is when they’re assigning well beyond 40 hours per week of homework, cheating is no longer unethical. Employers want universities to get students used to working long hours.

amanda ,
@amanda@aggregatet.org avatar

I agree, and I teach. A huge part of learning is having the time to experiment and process what you’ve learnt. However, doing that in a way that can be controlled, examined, etc, is very difficult so many institutions opt for tons of homework etc.

amanda ,
@amanda@aggregatet.org avatar

If the assignment is so easy ChatGPT can do it, it’s too easy.

Loduz_247 ,

This technology will not be published until the GPT-3 code is released.

sunzu ,

I trust you bro

Aopen ,
@Aopen@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Let me guess: too much processing power?

traches ,

„It’s probably broken and I don’t believe you”

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •