11–20 of 109 posts
What about false positives? Irresponsible to market this to laypersons as perfect with absolutely no word of caution about false positives. There's been some chatter on Reddit that some content writers were falsely accused of using ChatGPT and lost their clients.
A nice approach - estimates the randomness in text. I tried with various cases - blog posts, wikipedia, scientific docs, and with a few examples from chat, and it figured it out accurately. Respect. Even though I disagree with a need for such tools - it doesn’t matter if content was written by a human or by a machine. What matters is whether it’s easy to read and worthwhile.
A nice approach - estimates the randomness in text. I tried with various cases - blog posts, wikipedia, scientific docs, and with a few examples from chat, and it figured it out accurately. Respect. Even though I disagree with a need for such tools - it doesn’t matter if content was written by a human or by a machine. What matters is whether it’s easy to read and worthwhile.
“Need” may be arguable, but why disagree?
A nice approach - estimates the randomness in text. I tried with various cases - blog posts, wikipedia, scientific docs, and with a few examples from chat, and it figured it out accurately. Respect. Even though I disagree with a need for such tools - it doesn’t matter if content was written by a human or by a machine. What matters is whether it’s easy to read and worthwhile.
Disagree, this is very much needed. The problem with AI-generated content is that it looks superficially worthwhile and plausible, but in fact it often says things that are not correct.
This is also a problem with human-generated content.
A nice approach - estimates the randomness in text. I tried with various cases - blog posts, wikipedia, scientific docs, and with a few examples from chat, and it figured it out accurately. Respect. Even though I disagree with a need for such tools - it doesn’t matter if content was written by a human or by a machine. What matters is whether it’s easy to read and worthwhile.
Disagree, this is very much needed. The problem with AI-generated content is that it looks superficially worthwhile and plausible, but in fact it often says things that are not correct.
A nice approach - estimates the randomness in text. I tried with various cases - blog posts, wikipedia, scientific docs, and with a few examples from chat, and it figured it out accurately. Respect. Even though I disagree with a need for such tools - it doesn’t matter if content was written by a human or by a machine. What matters is whether it’s easy to read and worthwhile.
Disagree, this is very much needed. The problem with AI-generated content is that it looks superficially worthwhile and plausible, but in fact it often says things that are not correct.
A nice approach - estimates the randomness in text. I tried with various cases - blog posts, wikipedia, scientific docs, and with a few examples from chat, and it figured it out accurately. Respect. Even though I disagree with a need for such tools - it doesn’t matter if content was written by a human or by a machine. What matters is whether it’s easy to read and worthwhile.
It matters a lot instead. On the top of my mind I can think about few reasons:
- if you've to train a NLP model you'd rather do with data that is not autogenerated as AI generated content is rarely used to train new models (like generating a bounce of dogs pic with dall-e and use as input for image detection may not create a precise model)
- if you pay content creators to generate content and they use ChatGPT that's definitely a breach on contract and also a problem
- many search engines (e.g. Google) already heavily penalize auto generated content
- avoid cheating at exams / officials test/certs