Viking_HippieSlop detectives be like rule
Kenny2999So the AI thinks this human-made text is actually AI-made and offers an AI tool that’ll turn this human-made text into an AI-made text that’ll appear more human than the human-made text? I wonder how it’d rewrite this paragraph.
Sometimes it feels like the formal texts I write (like anything I write in the context of a job application) sound a bit like AI, but I just try to immitate the dumb way HR people write their job postings.
Chloé 🥕tools like these are used to reject CVs and grade school papers btw
no matter how much ai is trash do NOT use ai checkers, they do not work
ESPECIALLY don’t use the “ai text humanizer” function of one that’s absolutely certain that RL authors were AI 🤦🏻
Pangram does work, actually. Here’s independent validation by unaffiliated scientists:
Although white papers are biased, here’s pangram’s white paper:
Looked at the preprint. False positive rate of 0.2%, that’s crazy. I kinda find it hard to believe? It doesn’t seem possible to me.
That’s still 2 out of 1000 which if you’re using this at scale is not a great rate.
Would also be curious how that’s calculated if that’s done whit their test data that they’ve iterated on heavily or with actual feedback (which may never get back to them)
I don’t buy it. Not until I can test it, hands on.
So many LLM papers have amazing (and replicated) results in testing, yet fall apart in the real world outside of the same lab tests everyone uses. Research is overfit to hell.
And that’s giving them the benefit on the doubt; assuming they didn’t train on the test set in one form or another. Like how Llama 4 technically aced LM Arena because they finetuned it to.
LillyPipYep, they’re all trash and should not be relied upon.
I got anywhere from 35% to 70% AI generated results on a book I wrote in 2019, before AI was even released.
I witnessed an interaction where a grad school professor used AI detector and threatened to fail a student for submitting “AI generated” paper. It was so stupid, even after showing them how if you just add a few spelling mistakes the detection says human written, or even putting their own email in AI detector to show an example. It’s like the saying “little knowledge is dangerous”
It is just comparing against well-known public texts available to AI crawlers.
9WhiteTeethYeah, it seems like it’s actually working as intended?
1000%, and I’m disappointed at how few people are pointing this out. The purpose of the AI detector is to measure if someone has submitted something original, and I’m confident that OOP is not Mary Shelley.
It isn’t saying “I recognize this text”, it is saying “this text is AI generated”.
And then it’s offering a service to rewrite it, with ai, so that it can’t be recognized as ai.
It’s doing SOMETHING, for sure. I just don’t think what it’s doing results in accurate results for what it claims to measure.
BjörnSo many people have quoted that chapter in college and high school papers maybe there is a weird “shoot the moon” situation where a “works of origin” begin to look like a “works of derivation”.
Frankenstein is out of copyright.
I would be unsurprised if you couldn’t tease out the entire book. I wonder if Mary Shelly was a fan of dashes.
Being out of copyright is kinda irrelevant. There are lawsuits right now, because the AI firms apparently fed the AI’s tons of copyrighted books.
It is an it ist. Those lawsuits mean they at least try to stop it from producing copyrighted work. They won’t make Simpsons characters or produce anything from the house of mouse without major cajoling or some trickery in the prompt.
For the text from Frankenstein they are not even going to try.
Incidentally after writing this content I tried to get chatgpt to reproduce the first paragraph of chapter 3. It refused and offered a summary. I “reminded” it that the book is in the public domain and then it reproduced it without issue.