Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

ericmitchell.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#41

Post by lostoldsession »

mistymountains wrote: post #36
lostoldsession wrote: post #18

Is there really something of value to be had by fighting a war against the coming tide of AI that can spit out whatever you ask for? To me it looks like old world professors calling the council because the abacus is under threat by the calculator, and we need to ensure the students are absolutely not using the calculator for their abacus studies. This all being despite the fact that society at large is moving as fast…

Typically, outside experts are useful for out of distribution inference about a particular situation. Fine-tuned generative AI is self evidently not good at generalizing outside the scope of its training data, and becoming reliant on it for this task is foolish. Signed, AI researcher.

I mean, is the very situation you stated not a situation you are trying to solve? Would you stumble upon such a solution and bury it because AI isn't supposed to be more informed than experts?

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#42

Post by lostoldsession »

sublinear wrote: post #29
lostoldsession wrote: post #18

Is there really something of value to be had by fighting a war against the coming tide of AI that can spit out whatever you ask for? To me it looks like old world professors calling the council because the abacus is under threat by the calculator, and we need to ensure the students are absolutely not using the calculator for their abacus studies. This all being despite the fact that society at large is moving as fast…

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information returned. What's the point then? AI can only interpolate a response from internet sources, and claims of plagiarism are already coming hard. The internet was never a good source of expertise.

>AI will never replace experts

Just like it will never beat a top ranked GO player.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#43

Post by majormajor »

pelasaco wrote: post #28

> For example, students may use LLMs to complete written assignments, leaving instructors unable to accurately assess student learning. I'm one student using GPT to write my written assignments, and I cannot understand what is the issue with that. Even though it enhances the quality of my text, I cannot just copy, paste, submit and profit. I still have to understand what is being written. My workflow is normally the…

Honestly this doesn't sound like any less work than just reading the sources and writing it myself in the first place. You seem to be doing just as much revising and writing, with a LOT more "read and re-read."

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#44

Post by lostoldsession »

skor wrote: post #37
lostoldsession wrote: post #18

Is there really something of value to be had by fighting a war against the coming tide of AI that can spit out whatever you ask for? To me it looks like old world professors calling the council because the abacus is under threat by the calculator, and we need to ensure the students are absolutely not using the calculator for their abacus studies. This all being despite the fact that society at large is moving as fast…

these kind of comments “I will hire an AI instead of a human” are all quite ironic. the only things you will find out from asking an AI consultant is what occurred to _you_ to ask it. Interacting with a human will always give you more ideas, opinions and .. more questions. And you both can use the AI consultant, and get that important thing done.

This generation of AI? Sure.

Five or ten generations of AI from now? I'd place my full bet firmly on "Humans aren't nearly as special as they tell themselves they are"

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#45

Post by sublinear »

chrisshroba wrote: post #40
sublinear wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information returned. What's the point then? AI can only interpolate a response from internet sources, and claims of plagiarism are already coming hard. The internet was never a good source of expertise.

If an AI can be trained on the internet, it can be trained on a textbook or lecture notes. I think it’s shortsighted to insist that AI won’t replace experts based on the training sets that AIs are currently being trained on.

Who writes the books and lectures? This is literally chicken and egg. Can't have eggs without chickens. Can't have chickens without eggs. This is not an oversimplification.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#46

Post by sublinear »

lostoldsession wrote: post #42
sublinear wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information returned. What's the point then? AI can only interpolate a response from internet sources, and claims of plagiarism are already coming hard. The internet was never a good source of expertise.

>AI will never replace experts Just like it will never beat a top ranked GO player.

Go has static rules that can be mastered and a finite number of games possible. Expertise is always evolving.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#47

Post by sublinear »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #39

Back in the day I made my money cleaning up software projects where outsourcing to India, Romania and Brazil had gone horribly wrong and burned through piles of cash with very poor results to show for it. I suspect the incoming software development youth will be able to make their early money cleaning up the mess of AI application to software development.

Nobody is ever going to ship unreviewed code. It doesn't matter if a human or a robot wrote it.

Someone also has to write acceptance criteria beyond a mere prompt for a chat bot.

Someone has to approve it all, and it's not going to be a non-technical person. Someone also has to test it. Someone also has to integrate it with the rest of the solution. Code has dependencies and you can't manage all of them with AI alone.

Since the developer does all this already where the literal code is such a small part of the role, why even bother using generated code?

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#48

Post by cm2187 »

lostoldsession wrote: post #18

Is there really something of value to be had by fighting a war against the coming tide of AI that can spit out whatever you ask for? To me it looks like old world professors calling the council because the abacus is under threat by the calculator, and we need to ensure the students are absolutely not using the calculator for their abacus studies. This all being despite the fact that society at large is moving as fast…

I value being able to spot a T-1000 in disguise!

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#49

Post by t0bia_s »

sublinear wrote: post #29
lostoldsession wrote: post #18

Is there really something of value to be had by fighting a war against the coming tide of AI that can spit out whatever you ask for? To me it looks like old world professors calling the council because the abacus is under threat by the calculator, and we need to ensure the students are absolutely not using the calculator for their abacus studies. This all being despite the fact that society at large is moving as fast…

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information returned. What's the point then? AI can only interpolate a response from internet sources, and claims of plagiarism are already coming hard. The internet was never a good source of expertise.

> The internet was never a good source of expertise.

Agree, but world listen internet "experts". A lot.

Post reply on HN