4 ms·
> written with your knowledge that the text will be used for the purpose of having an LLM determine whether you wrote it Actually no. I've done the experiment
by Smaug123 2mo ago
> written with your knowledge that the text will be used for the purpose of having an LLM determine whether you wrote it
Actually no. I've done the experiment under those conditions, of course, but I've also out of mere interest just shoved some text in after the fact (most recently, to see whether Claude would de-anonymise the first two paragraphs of my answer to a questionnaire out of the box - it did).
"Quite obviously ridiculous" I simply disagree with. My compendium of Sherlock Holmes stories came with a book at the end, "The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes", which was century-old fanfiction, containing stories written by people trying to write Arthur Conan Doyle writing Sherlock Holmes, and it was clearly not him. I really think you massively underestimate just how many bits of information are contained in a paragraph of text!
- runako 2mo agoThe Holmes example is off-base as you had quite obviously been exposed to Holmes (e.g. it was in your training data). Pangram is asserting they don't need that to identify an individual. An individual who may still be learning and developing their writing style/voice, etc. Put this in the mentalist bucket. Sure, for parlor tricks like you describe, it can be entertaining because the stakes are low and we accept the error rate. Should you discipline a student solely on the basis of Pangram output (which is happening in the real world)? Absolutely not.