4 ms·
I'm not convinced that we're on the right path in detecting ai generated content. We've been looking at the end result and making conclusions about the journey
by binsquare 3y ago
I'm not convinced that we're on the right path in detecting ai generated content.
We've been looking at the end result and making conclusions about the journey - and that will always comes with degrees of uncertainty. A false positive rate of 0.01% now probably will not be applicable as people adapt and grow alongside ai content.
I wonder if anyone's working on software that documents the journey of the output similar to like git commits, such that we can analyze both the metadata (journey) & output (end result) to determine human authenticity.
- tomaskafka 3y agoEdit history is an awesome learning data (as they show the train of thought), but I can imagine that models will easily learn to generate it.
- vidarh 3y agoI write start to finish, and rarely edit. I used to write essays in pen during exams and hand in the first version. My teachers despaired, and I countered that my grades were far above average, so why would I do it differently? If you use edit history, you'll get lots of false positives.
- ramoz 3y agoMy team is trying to get to that, albeit are very early and hardly integrated enough into training processes/scaled-inference https://huggingface.co/spaces/EQTYLab/lineage-explorer https://huggingface.co/spaces/EQTYLab/lineage-explorer