There are some nice tidbits in the article: > The study also showed that participants' education and familiarity with large language models (LLMs) did not sign

There are some nice tidbits in the article: > The study also showed that participants' education and familiarity with large language models (LLMs) did not significantly predict their success in detecting AI. Also, humans only score 61%, and the best chat gpt prompt gets 41% (but 49% in the graph?). I’m definitely having trouble distinguishing between content farm crap written by humans and chatgpt output. They’re usually of comparable accuracy. I’d be curious to see an extended study where they had a dozen human participants or so, and got statistically significant percentages for each individual. Is the worst human below 41%? Is the best close to 100%?