4 ms·

I’m sure it matters. But how much does it matter? How much (perceived) intelligence would you be willing to sacrifice for an accurate AI predictor? I’d sacrifi

by josephg 2mo ago

I’m sure it matters. But how much does it matter? How much (perceived) intelligence would you be willing to sacrifice for an accurate AI predictor? I’d sacrifice a few %, easily. Maybe 10%. The models are getting smarter at such a fast rate that I’d be willing to lose a month or two of progress to help slow down the AI cheating epidemic. It sounds like you expect this fingerprinting approach would dramatically reduce the intelligence of their models. But I’m sure anthropic has measured it. I doubt they would have rolled this out if the intelligence cost were that significant. I suspect the cost is less than 5%. I personally can’t tell any difference from before they added fingerprinting. I bet you can’t either.

mangoman 2mo ago
10% is a lot! And why would this slow down the cheating epidemic? There’s tons of ways like declaude etc to get around the check. Also Claude’s style is very distinctive (e.g. “load bearing”) AND has changed since 4.5 quite dramatically. I might not be able to tell on a specific response, but I can tell you that I went from canceling my ChatGPT plan in November, to now reaching for it first and considering cancelling Claude because its style is getting really groan-inducing. It’s weird because I thought ChatGPT was really annoying about a year ago, and now codex is my first choice. Is the cheating epidemic so bad? I’m a little out of the loop there truthfully, what are the consequences of not being able to detect AI generated text in non academic settings? And in academic settings… maybe I am underestimating the challenge, but it does feel like the assignment and ways education happens needs to change? As an aside, I’m not totally sure why this solution feels so icky to me. There’s something Orwellian about how the phrasing of a passage embeds hidden information that only Anthropic can see i guess
- josephg 2mo ago
  > There’s tons of ways like declaude etc to get around the check How effective is this on the new fingerprinting mechanisms? > Is the cheating epidemic so bad? From what I’ve heard, yeah it’s out of control. And all the existing llm detectors that academics use have a high false positive rate, which catches a bunch of innocent students in the cross fire. > it does feel like the assignment and ways education happens needs to change? Why? Was there something fundamentally wrong with how universities teach and assess? The sector is responding. For example by moving back to more in person exams and reducing the load of any take home exams. Is that good, for some reason? > There’s something Orwellian about how the phrasing of a passage embeds hidden information Interesting. I don’t have the same response. LLMs give me an acute sense of existential dread each time their capabilities improve. But fingerprinting doesn’t move me at all. Do some soul searching on why this bothers you. I’d love to hear why, and I bet you aren’t alone.
sfink 2mo ago
In order to do anything about the cheating epidemic, this has to be robust to adversarial attacks. Color me very skeptical on that one. It seems like reprocessing a generated text and adjusting the distribution is a way easier problem than generating the text in the first place.

by josephg 2mo ago

mangoman 2mo ago

10% is a lot! And why would this slow down the cheating epidemic? There’s tons of ways like declaude etc to get around the check. Also Claude’s style is very distinctive (e.g. “load bearing”) AND has changed since 4.5 quite dramatically. I might not be able to tell on a specific response, but I can tell you that I went from canceling my ChatGPT plan in November, to now reaching for it first and considering cancelling Claude because its style is getting really groan-inducing. It’s weird because I thought ChatGPT was really annoying about a year ago, and now codex is my first choice. Is the cheating epidemic so bad? I’m a little out of the loop there truthfully, what are the consequences of not being able to detect AI generated text in non academic settings? And in academic settings… maybe I am underestimating the challenge, but it does feel like the assignment and ways education happens needs to change? As an aside, I’m not totally sure why this solution feels so icky to me. There’s something Orwellian about how the phrasing of a passage embeds hidden information that only Anthropic can see i guess

josephg 2mo ago
> There’s tons of ways like declaude etc to get around the check How effective is this on the new fingerprinting mechanisms? > Is the cheating epidemic so bad? From what I’ve heard, yeah it’s out of control. And all the existing llm detectors that academics use have a high false positive rate, which catches a bunch of innocent students in the cross fire. > it does feel like the assignment and ways education happens needs to change? Why? Was there something fundamentally wrong with how universities teach and assess? The sector is responding. For example by moving back to more in person exams and reducing the load of any take home exams. Is that good, for some reason? > There’s something Orwellian about how the phrasing of a passage embeds hidden information Interesting. I don’t have the same response. LLMs give me an acute sense of existential dread each time their capabilities improve. But fingerprinting doesn’t move me at all. Do some soul searching on why this bothers you. I’d love to hear why, and I bet you aren’t alone.

sfink 2mo ago

In order to do anything about the cheating epidemic, this has to be robust to adversarial attacks. Color me very skeptical on that one. It seems like reprocessing a generated text and adjusting the distribution is a way easier problem than generating the text in the first place.