5 ms·
How easy do you think it is to spot when AI is being used?
by martin-adams 4y ago
How easy do you think it is to spot when AI is being used?
- ghaff 4y agoAs per my example in another comment, it seems to be extremely easy to detect ChatGPT output today. Indeed, to me, surprisingly so.
- baq 4y agoThe default style is such by design. If you ask for very concise, single paragraph answers it gets hard.
- ghaff 4y agoSure, it's going to be harder to run detection on a short snippet. But a short snippet also isn't very useful in the context of writing a school paper for you.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI don't think it's as easy to detect ChatGPT output as you're making it out to be. Sure, it might be possible to detect it if you know what you're looking for, but to the average person, it's not that obvious.
- alvah 4y agoThere are already several services that claim to detect GPTx with high reliability. I’ve been testing originality.ai and it’s success rate at detecting unedited GPT3, Jasper, and ChatGPT output has been 100% so far.
- ghaff 4y agoI assume this is being added to the plagiarism detectors as we speak.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI doubt any of these GPTx detection services have a 100% success rate. It's important to be realistic about what they can and can't do. If one were seeking to fool one of these GPTx detection services, it could be as simple as adding a few mispellings or a personal anecdote.
- alvah 4y agoAt the moment, defeating the detection is as simple as running the GPT3 output through Quillbot. It's an arms race though. False positives are a massive problem & 100% successful detection overall is unlikely, agreed.
- bryan0 4y agokeyword "today". This stuff will not be detectable in a few years.
- omnimus 4y agoToday? In images? Quite easy. In text? Pretty hard. And if you do some cheking and editing then pretty impossible? In two years? Look where the space was two years ago. I think many things will have to change.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoGPT-3 definitely has a writing style. I assume it would be detectable, ironically, by an AI.
- sterlind 4y agoif it's detectable by an AI, you can GAN it into erasing its detectable writing style.
- joe_the_user 4y agoI think you could make the GPT's more undetectable by a computer using GAN techniques but that might well make the thing more detectable by a person. The GPT-style is something like rhetorical devices run together to make various claims unfold smoothly. An alternative approach could make the things inconsistency more obvious to a person.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoGPT-3 definitely has a writing style that can be detected by AI. But here's the thing: it's really easy to change its writing style. All you have to do is give it different input data and boom, you've got a whole new writing style.
- LightG 4y agoIf the AI only had to generate headlines and was good at it, then it would be very difficult to spot. * canned laughter *
- ako 4y agoI asked ChatGPT how to write texts so it can be identified as human generated. The answer: "One way to make it clear that a text is not generated by AI is to include a joke or riddle that is difficult for a machine to understand or generate. For example, you could include a joke that relies on wordplay or a complex pun. Here is an example: Why was the math book sad? Because it had too many problems."
- Der_Einzige 4y agoObviously we should not anthropomorphize a model, but this is just downright funny because it's so obviously wrong that it appears as almost malicious. Good thing ChatGPT doesn't know any complex puns or witty wordplay!
- joe_the_user 4y agoIt's everyone choice - odd, ironic or appropriate - what to think of how GPT's answers to keeps getting quoted on the question of how to detect it. The thing is, I'd see these answers as similar to everything else the program produces. A bunch of claims from the net cobbled together - I've read a number of Sci-fi novels and stories where "inability to understand humor" is the distinguishing quality of an AI (I'm guessing it extrapolated "hard create" from "hard to understand"). But that doesn't seem to be playing here where the AI mostly running together things humans previously wrote (and so it will an average amount humor in circumstances calling for it). A reasonable answer is that the AI's output tends to involve this running-together of common rhetorical devices along with false and/or contradictory claims within them. -- That said, the machine indeed did fail at humor thing time.
- pixl97 4y ago>A reasonable answer is that the AI's output tends to involve this running-together of common rhetorical devices along with false and/or contradictory claims within them. The question here is this an actual AI only failure mode. Are we detecting AI, or just bullshittery?
- 4y ago
- Der_Einzige 4y agoIn general, we don't know how to do this in a way that is robust to all the trivial ways to fool these techniques. I can just fine-tune a large scale model on a small downstream task, or use creative choices of decoding settings (high temperature, alternative decoders like contrastive/typicality sampling), to fool the existing methods.
- DeathArrow 4y agoI played quite a bit with ChatGPT. Many times some of the answers are absurd or completely irrational. So that might be a hint. Some times, though, the answers are false but plausible.