4 ms·
The moderators are supposed to just know it when they see it? It's that black and white to you? Or are lots of false positives a price we have to pay?
by delichon 8mo ago
The moderators are supposed to just know it when they see it? It's that black and white to you? Or are lots of false positives a price we have to pay?
- lokar 8mo agoIt’s only going to get harder has people continue to model their writing on LLM style.
- bluefirebrand 8mo agoI guess it's been fun but the internet is well and truly dead If not already, then soon
- robotresearcher 8mo agoYou're absolutely right.
- rpcope1 8mo agoYou know it's bad when reading "you're absolutely right..." causes you to oscillate between wanting to laugh and also violently destroy the computer.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Rapzid 8mo agoYou are viewing this through exactly the right lens. But here is the kicker..
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- rrgok 8mo agoI laughed so hard. It has been a long time. Thanks!
- Gabrys1 8mo agoCan use AI to detect that
- andai 8mo agoYeah it's weird, there was one case where I thought it was AI but wasn't sure. Several other comments pointed it out, too. Author claimed he wrote it manually. (Which is honestly even more concerning!) Maybe there can be a dedicated 'flag botspam' button? Then again it's a nuanced issue. I see AI used in a large percentage of writing now, so would this rule apply to the article as well?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- xpe 8mo ago> Yeah it's weird, there was one case where I thought it was AI but wasn't sure. Several other comments pointed it out, too. Author claimed he wrote it manually. (Which is honestly even more concerning!) I find the above comment concerning, so I ask: to what degree is the above commenter calibrated to ground truth? How would they know? How would we know? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibrated_probability_assessment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibrated_probability_assessm... It seems to me comments like the above are overconfident in the worst ways.
- andai 8mo agoHe was using a dozen obvious ChatGPT-isms. So either he was lying about writing it manually (the comforting option), or he actually writes like that, which is what I meant being concerning. But yeah, there isn't a way to prove it one way or the over, even when it's "obvious". I saw in some schools they're using systems where you have to type the essay in a web app, and the web app analyzes your keystrokes to determine if you're human.
- xpe 8mo agoThanks for sharing. / Speaking of keystroke analysis, have you read "Fall" by Neal Stephenson? A fun read; there is a generalization of this idea therein.
- layer8 8mo ago
- BalinKing 8mo agoSorry, updated my original comment—I meant to qualify it to only those cases where it's blatantly obvious. Obviously a lot of ambiguous comments will slip through as a result, but I agree with you that false negatives are better than false positives.
- vel0city 8mo agoYour comments use em dashes. Many would claim those are vastly overrepresented in AI language and thus an account overly using them are blatantly AI. I don't think your account is AI just by these few comments, but I would like to point out that most rubrics one might use to determine what is obviously AI might end up including the way you talk. If there was a truly accurate tell, some algorithm you could feed a few sentences in and it could tell you "yep, this is 100% AI", then yeah sure use that. I don't know you could realistically build that machine, especially when it comes to the generation of text.
- mroche 8mo agoYour comments use em dashes. Many would claim those are vastly overrepresented in AI language and thus an account overly using them are blatantly AI. I've always found this funny. Doesn't macOS' default text substitution enable (annoying to me) things like em-dash, smart quotes, etc?
- scratchyone 8mo agoFor what it's worth, there are modern LLM detectors with extremely low false-positive rates. The tech has advanced quite a bit since the ZeroGPT days. Personally I've gotten very good results from Pangram Labs. Still can't directly ban people though because false positives are always possible.
- zahlman 8mo agoIs that false-positive rate from your own testing, or the author's claims? What is the source of ground truth?
- 8mo ago
- shimman 8mo agoSomething we need to remember that AI was trained on every public internet comment, the vast majority of which are legit terrible. The biggest tell that someone is using AI is having multiple paragraphs saying the same point over and over again. Even trolls are more succinct.
- jimnotgym 8mo agoDammit, am I going to get banned for rambling?
- Marsymars 8mo agoHuh, this is what specifically drove me to complain about LLM-generated tickets at work - multiple paragraphs rewording and emphasizing the same point, all of which was topically relevant, but not necessary. (i.e. it was obvious in the first place, think along the lines of a ticket about a screen loading slowly, and then multiple paragraphs explaining the benefits of faster-loading screens.)
- zahlman 8mo agoIn some fraction of cases, it's really obvious. I would argue that those cases are really the ones that cause an LLM-specific harm, i.e., which make people feel like they aren't exclusively among fellow humans. If someone posts something that doesn't clearly read LLM-ish, but is otherwise terrible, it's not really different from if the same terrible thing had been written by hand. I don't think anyone who objects to LLM comments is really demanding a super-low false negative rate. Just get rid of the zero-effort stuff. For example, recently I've seen a lot of comments from new accounts that are just sycophantic towards TFA and try to highlight / summarize a specific idea or two, but don't really demonstrate any original thought (just, like, basic reading comprehension and an ability to express agreement). And they'll take a paragraph to do so, where a human with the same level of interest in the material might just say "good post" (granted, there's an argument to be made for excluding that, too).