11–20 of 171 posts
These AI detectors have all the validity of phrenology. You can enter some of your own writing (I did) to easily see for yourself. The text I entered had been online, and still is online, longer than AI writers have been around - but that doesn't seem to feed into their logic.
Daydream: The names of companies firing people on the basis of "AI detector" results are reported to the IRS...which then uses an "AI detector" to discover whether they've been cheating on their taxes.
Legal question: if a writer loses a job due to a false accusal of using AI, would they win a damages lawsuit against the AI detector service if they can prove that AI content detection is knowingly imprecise? That's why those types of services (including OpenAI's initial AI detector) often have huge legal disclaimers saying not to take it as 100% accurate.
Legal question: if a writer loses a job due to a false accusal of using AI, would they win a damages lawsuit against the AI detector service if they can prove that AI content detection is knowingly imprecise? That's why those types of services (including OpenAI's initial AI detector) often have huge legal disclaimers saying not to take it as 100% accurate.
Kinda like asking for the source code to the breathalyzer? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/08/im-not-drunk-off...
I want to see an "AI detector" that just marks everything as being not AI generated. Then, whenever someone is accused of using an AI by some nameless website, they can present their own website that shows they didn't use AI. Professor: "The website said you used an AI." Student: "Well, here's a website claiming I didn't use an AI." Professor: "I don't know if I believe that website, let's look into the merits of how…
These AI detectors have all the validity of phrenology. You can enter some of your own writing (I did) to easily see for yourself. The text I entered had been online, and still is online, longer than AI writers have been around - but that doesn't seem to feed into their logic.
If your work looks so much like generated content that it’s flagging detectors, then it’s also probably the work doomed to be replaced by generated content soon enough (if not already). I don’t think current content generators will destroy many professions any time soon, but a lot of high-volume/low-value work is going to get consumed by them. This seems like an example of that work. Hopefully, this guy didn’t expect…
It sounds so easy put like that. Hmm.. what do I have to do today? Get some mustard at the grocery store, pick up a new career, drop the dog off at the vet.
Why even care? If the article is well written and well researched and it's seemingly impossible for readers to tell the difference, what's the problem with using AI to improve it? Did people care when computers were used instead of typewriters? When spell checkers became popular?
Why even care? If the article is well written and well researched and it's seemingly impossible for readers to tell the difference, what's the problem with using AI to improve it? Did people care when computers were used instead of typewriters? When spell checkers became popular?