4 ms·
Hey it's me, Max. I ran the analysis for WIRED and got them their initial 47% number for AI content. The CEO accused me of trying to extort him because I sent
by maxspero 2y ago
Hey it's me, Max. I ran the analysis for WIRED and got them their initial 47% number for AI content.
The CEO accused me of trying to extort him because I sent a short email with our findings prior to the publication of this article.
He also casts doubt on the efficacy of AI detection (fair) but I think our AI detection model is orders of magnitude more accurate than the others and I stand by its predictions.
- stvltvs 2y agoWhat gives you confidence in this AI detection model?
- maxspero 2y agoWe benchmark on pre-2023 datasets of O(10M) documents not in our training set. Other detectors seem to have between 1-3% false positive rate and ours is around 1 in 10,000 as of our latest model update. We do a lot of active learning + core set selection to keep FPR low and improve recall on larger LLMs. Our white paper with some methodology is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14873 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14873
- Wheatman 2y agoInteresting read. I noticed something, you achieved near 100% accuracy on most domains in every domain but scientific which made me wonder, how much is that could be due to how "strict" and "profrssional" these papers could be, or maybe how a slightly disproportionate number of the training data for these LLM could be from science based articles and papers, as they are generally viewed to be "high quality" Interesting read either way, best of luck on your project (: