3 ms·
Worth noting that OpenAI's own tool for detection tool only correctly identifies AI written text 26% of the time and also incorrectly identifies human-written t
by nl 4y ago
Worth noting that OpenAI's own tool for detection tool only correctly identifies AI written text 26% of the time and also incorrectly identifies human-written text as AI-written 9% of the time[1].
Is there any reason to think any other tool (eg TurnItIn has one claiming 98% accuracy!) is actually any better?
[1] https://openai.com/blog/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-written-text https://openai.com/blog/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-ai-...
- lostlogin 4y agoAny serious student runs their own work through detection tools before submission. A student who’s work I was reviewing was telling me that the university actually encouraged this.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoThat is busy work that should neither be necessary nor encouraged.
- lostlogin 4y agoI’m suppose the depends on who wrote it, the student or an AI.
- hammyhavoc 4y agoThis is actually common advice given at major universities in the UK. This was standard advice even seven years ago. Students may inadvertently plagiarize, and likewise, they may also inadvertently self-plagiarize. There's a lot of nuance that you may not have accounted for.
- lewdev 4y agoIf this were available for free, it sounds fine. If not, then I can see this as a problem.
- uni_rule 4y agoPersonally I never found a free tool that did that and would be weary of using any that did for fear of my work being stolen and resold. Also fuck Chegg. I will never give them a dime after they tried to take over every citation tool on the whole god damn web.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoIt should also be worth mentioning that AI development is specifically optimizing to reduce the difference between human and AI generated texts. In the end it is simply a rat race that the tools for detection won't win as there won't be a conclusive difference.