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.

sunzu ,

I trust you bro

Nomad ,

The detector is most likely a machine learning algorithm. That said, releasing that would allow for adversarial training. (An LLM that would not be detected). Therefore they can only offer maybe an api to use it but can not give unlimited access to the model.

credo ,

This is the reason. Releasing it would invalidate it.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

If u release an api for it u can still use that to make training data to beat it.

Nomad ,

That’s what the Chinese tried with chatgpt. Didn’t go well.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

Huh? Use chatgpt to generate training data to train another ai? Thats pretry common actually I believe even mistral does that hence why u need somthing like dolphin to remove the alignment by openai.

Aopen ,
@Aopen@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Let me guess: too much processing power?

DrCataclysm ,

The detection rate is worthless, an algorithm that says anything is Chatgpt would have a detection rate of 100%. What would be more interesting than that is the false positive rate but they never talk about that.

JohnEdwa ,

The detector provides an assessment of how likely it is that all or part of the document was written by ChatGPT. Given a sufficient amount of text, the method is said to be 99.9 percent effective.

That means given 100 pieces of text and asked if they are made by ChatGPT or not, it gets maybe one of them wrong. Allegedly, that is, and with the caveat of “sufficient amount of text”, whatever that means.

mark3748 ,

It’s actually 1 in 1000, 99.0% would be 1/100.

oktoberpaard ,

A false positive is when it incorrectly determines that a human written text is written by AI. While a detection rate of 99.9% sounds impressive, it’s not very reliable if it comes with a false positive rate of 20%.

JohnEdwa ,

I know what a false positive is, and it’s not a thing when talking about effectiveness, they claim it gets it right 99.9% of the time.

oktoberpaard ,

Right, I see what you mean now. I misread your comment as explaining something that was already clear.

traches ,

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

_sideffect ,

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

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.

tinfoilhat ,

I call bullshit.

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.

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.

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.

Alphane_Moon ,
@Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world avatar

Given a sufficient amount of text, the method is said to be 99.9 percent effective.

If that’s really the case, they should release some benchmarks. I am skeptical. Promising the world is a key component of their “business model”.

NegativeInf ,

What is a sufficient amount? Most comments are short af.

technocrit ,

I don’t think these grifters know what a benchmark is.

MagicShel ,

I think given enough output I could probably detect it that accurately as well. ChatGPT has a particular voice and the longer it goes, the more that voice comes out.

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