4 ms·

Maybe AI platforms can create a bot crawler or API that scrapes text across a website of choice and returns a score of how confident it is that the text on that

by sizzle 4y ago

Maybe AI platforms can create a bot crawler or API that scrapes text across a website of choice and returns a score of how confident it is that the text on that page was written by/plagiarized from an AI, having them run it through their AI-writing trained models. A score above a certain threshold will get your page flagged by some central fact-checking authority and apply a AI citation label to your page (among many other solutions). AI platforms generating text should have a "memory" of what was written/generated by them at a minimum and give the public the ability to check for plagiarism against their AI text generation models. Sounds like a good start up idea?

jvm___ 4y ago
Or <tinfoil hat> $14.99 for a blue star on Twitter to verify you are who you say you are... doesn't seem like such a bad idea anymore.
- fanso99 4y ago
  Isn’t that just a paid account without any KYC verification?
sdenton4 4y ago
This sounds like a terrrrrible arms race to participate in. It's already hard enough to track usage of copyrighted materials, where there's a pretty static piece of content that you want to match against. ID'ing AI generated content produced by someone who doesn't want the content to be ID'ed as AI is going to be /very/ hard in the long run.
- sizzle 4y ago
  What is the alternative if the AI model creators/maintainers are not giving the public a mechanism for transparency/accountability to detect public abuse of their systems? The cat is out of the bag and the platforms are going to be widely abused to generate harmful content as it exists currently.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    The model creators/maintainers will eventually - and probably already does - include bad actors who will train a model to get around whatever safeguards the big players attach to their models. This is like asking the New York Times to carefully include fact checking metadata to ensure there's no fake news on Reddit. Sure, you'll have fact checking for the NYT, but it's not the source of the problem.

by sizzle 4y ago

jvm___ 4y ago

Or <tinfoil hat> $14.99 for a blue star on Twitter to verify you are who you say you are... doesn't seem like such a bad idea anymore.

fanso99 4y ago
Isn’t that just a paid account without any KYC verification?

sdenton4 4y ago

This sounds like a terrrrrible arms race to participate in. It's already hard enough to track usage of copyrighted materials, where there's a pretty static piece of content that you want to match against. ID'ing AI generated content produced by someone who doesn't want the content to be ID'ed as AI is going to be /very/ hard in the long run.

sizzle 4y ago
What is the alternative if the AI model creators/maintainers are not giving the public a mechanism for transparency/accountability to detect public abuse of their systems? The cat is out of the bag and the platforms are going to be widely abused to generate harmful content as it exists currently.
- sdenton4 4y ago
  The model creators/maintainers will eventually - and probably already does - include bad actors who will train a model to get around whatever safeguards the big players attach to their models. This is like asking the New York Times to carefully include fact checking metadata to ensure there's no fake news on Reddit. Sure, you'll have fact checking for the NYT, but it's not the source of the problem.