Shouldn’t it be easy with today’s computing power to simply search all content first for a match to known sources?
That would make sense if you wanted to do what was best for the user rather than push the Chosen Product.
Wouldn’t necessarily tell you if that known source is AI. So now we have to go through everything by hand anyway.
Of course it can, if it’s from 1859 the chances of it being AI are … I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
And how do you know the source for your “hit” isn’t lying? You are not describing a trivially easy problem at all.
It seems trivially easier than whatever the hell AI is.
Does it think it’s AI because it was trained on it so it recognizes it as being part of AI now?
It was posted like some kind of gotcha but…this book was in the dataset.
I’m aware that LLMs don’t keep the dataset in memory but it “knows” that this is an existing work but these sites aren’t doing any wild calculations to figure out if it was AI-generated. They basically just check to see if the sentences exist elsewhere and they do. In the original dataset.
So it was wrong to say it’s AI-generated but it correctly identified that it’s not original.
They analyze statistical patterns, they don’t cross reference the training data.
It’s picking up the text as generated because it’s mostly guess work and constantly spits out false positives, especially with non native speakers.
Honestly I didn’t expect them to flag non-native speakers. LLMs don’t often make gramatical mistakes (or at least not ones your average joe could identify)
Foreign speakers often know English better than most Americans
And are also less prone to use slang unless they go more deep in the culture
Oooh yeah, the most common dumb mistakes are (by my own checking) done by Americans in the VAST majority cases. Stuff like not knowing how to use your/you’re, there/their/they’re, cloths/clothes, definitely/defiantly, where/were/we’re, its/it’s etc. correctly and the many other failings of basic grammar like “would/could of” and so much else.
I don’t think there’s another country in the world where the native speakers are so fucking bad at even the most basic shit.
The most common response I’ve gotten and seen when others correct stuff like that is “calm down, English probability isn’t their main language” yet when checking it’s been Americans who made the mistakes 99% of the time.I was going to say:
The difference is between growing up, learning a language by hearing and making the sounds, and learning it as a foreign language, having to understand and memorize the rules.
“They’re, their, there” all sound the same as well as “could’ve, could of”.But interestingly other English speakers don’t make those mistakes as often as people emerging from the american education system.
It’s plausible that Americans are worse at this than foreigners, but English spelling is a crime and everyone who makes mistakes ought be excused on account of how ridiculous the “rules” are.
I know how to spell most of the words I use and I resent the fact that my memory is polluted with this otherwise useless knowledge.
In many other languages if you know how to say a word, you automatically know how to spell it. We need a world language with grammar as simple as English and spelling as straightforward as German.
The decline I’ve seen in my time on the internet is genuinely shocking
ya we used 2 jst tlk lyk dis b4 t9 bcam irlvnt
Abrevs 4evr
Weirdly enough i saw a massive increase in little typoes on reddit this year. More typoes and such in a few months than i saw in years.
It feels like LLMs started making mistakes on purpose.
That is not in the least bit how a tool like this works.
All AI detection is extremely unreliable, but they operate on principles which, if the assumptions supporting them were true, would be sound. The way you imagine they work is different: you’re describing a “novel text detector” which is not at all the same thing as an “AI text detector”.
AI detection works, at a very high level, by throwing a bunch of examples of AI text, and a bunch of examples of non-AI text, into a machine-learning model, and training it until it is able to recognise the AI examples as such. It doesn’t work by throwing in all existing text including novels written before AI, because that would never do what you want.
(The reason, if you’re interested, why this ends up not working is because the features such a model identifies as indicative of AI text are very sensitive: if you train it on Claude and ChatGPT, it will not work on Gemini output. If you train it on Gemini, when Gemini updates it will get worse. If someone generates text with a weird prompt, it may slip by. If someone writes in a weird way, it may get flagged. And if any AI company wanted to defeat AI detectors, it could trivially feed its output through one during the training process and give that output as examples to avoid in the training, so that the model learns to create output which doesn’t “look like” AI output to those detectors.)
I was being overly simplistic - I meant more that the patterns it’s trying to detect were created by an LLM trained on the data they’re inputting.
It’s like how reddit comments from 2016 look generated. If you stick one of those into an AI detector, it’ll give a false positive for the same reason
You weren’t simplifying what you said was just wrong what the person you are responding to is just correct. Just admit when you are wrong
I’m sorry, what? It’s correctly identified that it’s what, now?
It’s original in the book. What the user entered is an exact copy.
“Original” is not the correct work but you know what I mean.
The little scale thing doesn’t say it is 100% not original, it says it is AI/LLM generated.
Yes…because the pasted text has some of the exact patterns that are part of the dataset that the website trained on…because that dataset contains text generated from a dataset containing the exact paragraph…
I feel like you’re being deliberately obtuse.
I feel like you just aren’t making sense and just need to maybe ask google for how any of this works
I feel like you don’t understand the difference between ‘AI generated’ and ‘something that existed over 200 years ago’.
I feel like you don’t understand that LLMs train on text that existed 200 years ago…
Yes, but if that were true, then every single book ever published would be flagged. The training data is for teaching it patterns, not just cross-referencing.
Everything you said was hallucinated. Nothing you said was even slightly coherent or connected with reality. Absolutely nothing was correct. If you let your cat dance on the keyboard more sense would come out.
That must have sounded really clever and powerful in your head for you to hit send, huh? Couldn’t decide which zinger to go with so you sent all 4?
I’d have given you more credit if you just posted the quote from Billy Madison. Try harder lol
No it just annoys me when people have no understanding of how shit works and just make up an explanation instead of looking it up. Hell you could have asked chatGPT and probably got a correct answer.
They do keep it.
The phenomena of regurgitation is a strong evidence on it, for example.
Those detector sites are really evil. They simply do not work. They can’t work. But they are advertising and people are using them to “check” texts. Which then totally fucks students when their idiotic teacher uses such a site and accuses them of using AI tools.
I was having a conversation with someone here who claimed to be a professor (I believe it) and went on and on about how they are a subject matter expert and that AI detection actually works really well these days. I told him I felt bad for his students and he had a full blown insult laden meltdown at me then deleted everything.
I just feel bad for those students.
I wonder if everything uploaded to them gets used as LLM training data
i worry about this. all my writing in grad school, likely fed to a machine.
I had to let out a depressed chuckle when someone referred to Pangram as “industry standard”. …just because that particular service had been the centre of the Shy Girl controversy and they had dragged themselves to the limelight again when another novel got accused of AI use.
The Shy Girl controversy is a doozy. People raised their eyebrows and thought the novel was written with AI. Pangram CEO elbowed his way to the limelight and proved, using his fine AI product, that this novel is [insert some absurdly specific high percentage] AI. The author was like “Well I handed my novel to someone else, and they used AI to copyedit the book!” The publisher was like “So you used someone else afterall, after declaring you were the sole author? Consider the publishing agreement revoked.” People were like “Due to AI use, right? 😀 Due to AI use, right? 😕” The publisher was like “…No, we have a few AI projects cooking.”
I realized my assignment went through an originality checker, which I guess is safer than calling it a plagiarism checker.
Still felt odd that it flagged a quote I used from the source book, in the section asking for a quotation. I would’ve thought it’d at least disregard things between quotation marks.
What’s even dumber is that it flagged a single instance of the word “the”, just the word not the sentence it was in. I don’t know why, but I guess that specific “the” was unoriginal.
You copied it from here didn’t you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The
Absolute disgusting levels of thievery
When I was in college all my papers were automatically submitted to TurnItIn when I uploaded them to the submission Dropbox. Every use of the singular word “the” was flagged as plagiarism. Every time.
Call me a dishonest copying cheater.
You just have to pray to the RNG, and hope your 100% honest, original, hard work, is not flagged by some stupid ass AI.
This is how much damage AI has done.
Btw the originality checker in my comment was also TurnItIn, so we’ve experienced the same thing.
If the tool disregards quotations, a clever student would wrap entire papers in white-colored quotation marks!
I think you stole it from Hamlet. I’m pretty sure I saw the in Hamlet.
To be or not to be that is question.
-Hamletsnov
yeah, quotes and citations.
Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein is the doctor. Wisdom is knowing that Shelley vibe coded the entire story.
Objectively Frankenstein is the monster and a terrible father.
Uses Ai to detect the use of Ai
To be fair, the monster was artificial and intelligent.
You don’t create a thriving breakfast cereal brand without top tier smarts
Or Smurfs.
It’s a 100% match on what the model was trained on.
Shit like this happens if you train your AI on every god damn fucking text on earth.
AI is like: “i made this”
We’re using AI to determine what is AI, even though AI doesn’t know what AI is.
Perfectly reasonable, no careers will be destroyed, surely
Yeah, the AI based “AI detectors” are themselves slop.
I’ve been commenting on the open, public internet in some form or fashion since the 1900s. These models have been trained to sound like me, not the other way around. Fortunately, the bullies at the back of the class who don’t pay attention have mostly caught on to this fact, after having it repeated to them hundreds of times. The other day I was thinking about it, and realized it’s been a bit since anybody’s accused me of using AI to write a comment. I think it’s because I stopped proofreading what I write. Leave in those mistakes and the assholes at the back of the room who don’t pay attention are too naive to think that machines can’t make mistakes, I guess.
What was the Internet like in 1900? IP over Avian Carriers?
No we didn’t have birds back then, they hadn’t evolved yet.
They still haven’t because birds aren’t real.
Is this it? My first Lemmy inside joke? I feel honored
If you meant “IP over Avian Carriers”, that is a joke everywhere with nerds. It was an inside joke within the IETF. Sorry to break that to you.
RFC 1149
Loved it when he met The AI Bride of Frankenstein.
The Al Bride of Frankenstein?
The AI Bride of Frankenstein.
And this is the “unseen” loss of value. Can you imagine writing a book (by hand the old-fashioned way – maybe with just a text editor) and submitting it to publish and the publisher rejects it as “written by AI?”
This is absolutely the biggest source of anxiety I have right now as someone who has been writing a really heartfelt novel for over a decade. (Things got delayed due to… personal stuff. Also I started drinking beer like a proper author. It didn’t help, actually.)
Back when I started this, I had been publishing some short stories under CC licences. I guess that has to be an option once again (and as much as I hate it as an open source nerd, -NC might make an appearance.)
ah so the truth is revealed. ai detectors dont really detect ai use, they detect the content they stole to train on.
deleted by creator
i want it to fuck off
deleted by creator
But until we get laws in place banning AI (and reducing their board of directors to mulch), we should try to support detecting and punishing its use.
What exactly do you think drives the AI detectors?
deleted by creator
Answer the question.
Edit: All right, since you won’t, I’ll spell it out for you. It’s AI. The AI detectors are AI models. You are suggesting we put the policing of AI use in the hands of AI. It’s not even close to a good idea. It’s nothing less than self-defeating.
deleted by creator
If you’re going to accuse someone of plagiarism you need to be more than 99.9% accurate.
Yeah, no. Accuse isn’t convict.
Also, as a teacher I would literally already know they cheated. AI writing is easy to spot. Ironically, it’s always people who can’t write who’re super worried about getting “falsely” caught using AI. Never do I hear creative writing majors or English majors or philosophy majors express a shred of concern. I wonder why that is?
AI writing that you have spotted is super easy to spot.
When used for cheating by a student you see a lot, it’s almost certainly going to be super easy to spot.
The appeal for cheating is that it skips the work. If they skip the work, they didn’t rework the GenAI output. Even if the GenAI output could pass for a human, it’s not going to pass for that human that you know.
Also, advanced classes make ‘homework’ barely count, so even if you got away with cheating, the in-person assessments are going to ruin your grade.
deleted by creator
In my experience, highschool teachers could not be bothered to look over or grade assignments. They would do a lazy “what grade do you think you deserve” essay at the start of the year and carry that grade that you gave yourself through the remaining terms regardless of how much work you did or did not do, even missing that mandatory assignments were skipped.
I had the same experience with High School English teachers… I was a straight C student through school. No matter what I did I couldn’t break through a C, especially in English class.
Then one year a new teacher came to school and early in the school year she gave us an assignment to teach something to the class. This type of assignment was where I shined because it wasn’t the typical, boring work… so I dove in. I made sheets for the overhead projector, I had handouts, and overall I knew my shit. I got an A on the assignment. And every assignment after that. Once I forgot to do my homework, but she had told us that we need to turn in something, even if it’s a blank sheet with our name on it… so that’s what I did. I got an A. I actually had that hanging in my bedroom for a while because I felt it told me a lot about how the world works. At the end of the school year I got an award for ‘most improved in English’. The next year, I was a C student again.
deleted by creator
“People who speak out against this are of no consequence” is not a rebuttal of the argument.
deleted by creator
What in the world are you talking about? None of these scores are bad at all. 149/170 is a score of 87.6%, at collegiate level. Characterizing that as “illiterate” is ludicrous.
deleted by creator
Suppose the question is why even use the tool if you can tell by looking.
I’m guessing it’s because if you just say it, they’ll argue or maybe get their parents to argue and if you can have a ‘detector’ serve as ‘evidence’? Especially if they believe in the tool to use in the first place, they are likely to believe in the detector tool, no mater how flawed? Or to just serve as a general deterrent, your work is being checked by a machine and you’ll get caught if you try…
I’ll say at least some kids are scared of being falsely accused of cheating because they don’t trust the tools to be accurate, perhaps more so in the very anti-AI kids that would avoid the AI like the plague. No perfect answer how you reassure that the tool isn’t immediately trusted without also defanging it to the intended audience in that case though…
deleted by creator
I’ve used the detectors as well. At my university, accusing a student of cheating is a big deal and you want to go into it with as much documentation as you can muster. Even though I know it is AI, I’m going to be showing it to administrators without my area of expertise and experience. Administrators like reports and numbers, so I run whatever the assignment is through a checker, let it generate a score over 90%, and now I’ve got a number inside of my paperwork that will encourage my supervisor, or more often my supe’s supe, to take my accusation seriously. Before these AI checkers, I used “turn it in”, and before that I had LCS tools and diff command.
Can i disable this font nonsense?
It’s only big in web view, and only under certain circumstances. It might be a formatting mistake.
You literally cheating doing your job when you use janky AI detectors that have no way to know if the work is made by AI and just hallucinate some score.
The real AI detection like what is enforced by EU (secretly shifting biases towards certain words to appear more) would not have publically available validators cause otherwise anyone would be able to learn how to avoid getting caught. Plus, you’d have to validate for every LLM separately. Plus, open weight LLM would whoop your ass anyway.
This just comes off like you’re biased against any students who are into STEM fields and favor the ones in the liberal arts.
Why would you ever trust such numbers?
deleted by creator
Until you see it in practise. People around me that are studying are getting flagged constantly.
Marketing.
deleted by creator
