5 ms·

Unfortunately, I think this is a losing battle. They can't scale the number of human readers checking for story quality, and AI can scale almost limitlessly. Au

by Veen 4y ago

Unfortunately, I think this is a losing battle. They can't scale the number of human readers checking for story quality, and AI can scale almost limitlessly. Automated AI detection simply doesn't work. I've experimented with all the main AI detectors, and they are woefully inaccurate, especially with GPT-4 content.

neuropsha 4y ago
[dead]
ghaff 4y ago
>Automated AI detection simply doesn't work. When did this change? As of 2 or 3 months ago, OpenAI's tool seemed pretty reliable at separating 100% ChatGPT content from 0%. Of course, past some level of a human using a generative AI and editing it and augmenting it, it's harder. And outside of certain artificial constraints in places like schools, it's not clear that using a generative AI assistant is even "wrong." Though to the degree that floods the web, publications, conference proposals, etc. with content that is just "OK" it makes the job of people filtering it who are already flooded with mediocre but not necessarily bad content that much harder.
yamtaddle 4y ago
All these publications constantly complain about being swamped with submissions, even pre-AI. The top-tier ones should probably switch to mail-only for unknowns, with an allow-list of authors (those they've previously published, or whom they've rejected but are very interested in seeing more from) who may submit electronically. Hell, they probably should have before this.
- ericbarrett 4y ago
  Riffing on "mail-only", I'd further suggest: - Include a printout of the story in the submission packet (shipping costs) - Also require a signed (and perhaps notarized) affidavit stating that it's entirely the author's own work* - Require a header/submission form to be filled out by hand (this can be verified quickly with a magnifying glass) It's not perfect; the story could still be generated by AI, for example, and autopens exist. But it would put a very manual cost and effort barrier in front of their submission process, that IMO is still not so high as to discourage legitimate entrants. * Obviously this should be informed by legal counsel, I am not a lawyer, etc.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    As someone who has been on a lot of conference committees, I wouldn't necessarily require proposals to be sent physically; that would create a lot of work for us. But I do favor limiting the # per person and asking questions other than just the standard abstract that might discourage people who are just spamming everything in sight. Friction isn't always a bad thing.
    - ericbarrett 4y ago
      I don't know that the extra work will be avoidable in the future. I think anything with a public API is going to be gamed and spammed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
13years 4y ago
Unfortunately, I think this is a losing battle. This is just a narrow representation of what is to come. Everything positioned against AI will be a losing battle. It is a skill/creativity replicator and that concept breaks the existing model of everything.
idiotsecant 4y ago
The answer to this seems simple - require a micropayment along with the submittal. tune the amount until it's not worth spamming anymore. Return the payment when the submittal is accepted or rejected. Consider keeping the payment when the submittal is clearly AI or low quality spam. We have all the necessary technology to do this today cleanly and efficiently. If we don't it's a social problem, not a technical one.
- em-bee 4y ago
  one of the important aspects for clarkesworld is international submissions. unfortunately , while technology for micropayments exist even in eg. many african countries, i haven't yet seen any micropayment system that works globally without high transaction costs.

by Veen 4y ago

neuropsha 4y ago

[dead]

ghaff 4y ago

>Automated AI detection simply doesn't work. When did this change? As of 2 or 3 months ago, OpenAI's tool seemed pretty reliable at separating 100% ChatGPT content from 0%. Of course, past some level of a human using a generative AI and editing it and augmenting it, it's harder. And outside of certain artificial constraints in places like schools, it's not clear that using a generative AI assistant is even "wrong." Though to the degree that floods the web, publications, conference proposals, etc. with content that is just "OK" it makes the job of people filtering it who are already flooded with mediocre but not necessarily bad content that much harder.

yamtaddle 4y ago

All these publications constantly complain about being swamped with submissions, even pre-AI. The top-tier ones should probably switch to mail-only for unknowns, with an allow-list of authors (those they've previously published, or whom they've rejected but are very interested in seeing more from) who may submit electronically. Hell, they probably should have before this.

ericbarrett 4y ago
Riffing on "mail-only", I'd further suggest: - Include a printout of the story in the submission packet (shipping costs) - Also require a signed (and perhaps notarized) affidavit stating that it's entirely the author's own work* - Require a header/submission form to be filled out by hand (this can be verified quickly with a magnifying glass) It's not perfect; the story could still be generated by AI, for example, and autopens exist. But it would put a very manual cost and effort barrier in front of their submission process, that IMO is still not so high as to discourage legitimate entrants. * Obviously this should be informed by legal counsel, I am not a lawyer, etc.
- ghaff 4y ago
  As someone who has been on a lot of conference committees, I wouldn't necessarily require proposals to be sent physically; that would create a lot of work for us. But I do favor limiting the # per person and asking questions other than just the standard abstract that might discourage people who are just spamming everything in sight. Friction isn't always a bad thing.
  - ericbarrett 4y ago
    I don't know that the extra work will be avoidable in the future. I think anything with a public API is going to be gamed and spammed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

13years 4y ago

Unfortunately, I think this is a losing battle. This is just a narrow representation of what is to come. Everything positioned against AI will be a losing battle. It is a skill/creativity replicator and that concept breaks the existing model of everything.

idiotsecant 4y ago

The answer to this seems simple - require a micropayment along with the submittal. tune the amount until it's not worth spamming anymore. Return the payment when the submittal is accepted or rejected. Consider keeping the payment when the submittal is clearly AI or low quality spam. We have all the necessary technology to do this today cleanly and efficiently. If we don't it's a social problem, not a technical one.

em-bee 4y ago
one of the important aspects for clarkesworld is international submissions. unfortunately , while technology for micropayments exist even in eg. many african countries, i haven't yet seen any micropayment system that works globally without high transaction costs.