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

"No, I swear I wrote this."

revise.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#21

Post by lelanthran »

andai wrote: post #16

Didn't Pangram claim to have a >99% success rate? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48667761 From their homepage: > Detect AI-generated content with 99.98% accuracy. Are they wrong? Though I ran the numbers, and even with a 0.02% false positive rate, that works out to about 6000 students falsely accused every semester, per university.

> > Detect AI-generated content with 99.98% accuracy.

> Though I ran the numbers, and even with a 0.02% false positive rate

They don't say that the false positive is 0.02%, only that the accuracy is 0.02%. All we know for certain is that the false positive and false negatives added together result in 0.02%.

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#22

Post by tsss »

SwellJoe wrote: post #8

Trivial to simulate. Though I disagree that AI writing is impossible to differentiate from human prose, at least for now. It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose (or, at least, much less interesting to read), though some are better than others, and I'm better able to spot writing from models I use regularly (Claude has a very distinctive style I can spot from a mile away, but that's true partl…

Or maybe 2 out of 3 guys you call "AI" actually wrote it themselves and you were too prejudiced to believe them.

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#23

Post by carlosjobim »

lelanthran wrote: post #15
sscaryterry wrote: post #11

A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect.

> A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect. Innocent until proven guilty is for a court. Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness. Since so few humans ever wrote like the way LLMs default to, it's not unreasonable to refuse serious engagement with a pa…

> Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness.

And all of those are a fools errand, except meeting people face to face. Meeting somebody IRL it takes just a few minutes to know if they are trustworthy or not.

If the business is severely serious, then you have to do like Genghis Khan and get fully drunk together. Anybody who refuses can never be fully trusted.

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#24

Post by sscaryterry »

lelanthran wrote: post #15
sscaryterry wrote: post #11

A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect.

> A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect. Innocent until proven guilty is for a court. Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness. Since so few humans ever wrote like the way LLMs default to, it's not unreasonable to refuse serious engagement with a pa…

I'm really talking about social dynamics here, not what is legal or not. I'm suggesting that putting in these type of "checks" contribute not alleviate the problem.

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#25

Post by dylan604 »

kube-system wrote: post #6
khaledh wrote: post #4

What if the human is just transcribing directly from AI generated text?

One could, but the primary motivation to use AI to generate text is because it is fast and easy. You could spend an hour elaborately pretending to write something yourself, or you could simply write it yourself.

Do not misjudge how hard people will work attempting to not work. Work smarter, not harder is not as widely adhered

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#26

Post by mike_hock »

andai wrote: post #14

We're gonna have to bring back handwritten homework assignments. Oh, wait. https://images.ctfassets.net/kftzwdyauwt9/3bzFMXhknmq5TZvVL7... (From https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-images-2-0/ )

The irony is that a printout of a photo (well, "photo") of handwritten homework would be pretty easy to distinguish from genuine handwritten homework.

(otoh it's also trivial to copy whatever ChatGPT wrote by hand without thinking about the assignment at all)

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#27

Post by lelanthran »

carlosjobim wrote: post #23
lelanthran wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect. Innocent until proven guilty is for a court. Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness. Since so few humans ever wrote like the way LLMs default to, it's not unreasonable to refuse serious engagement with a pa…

> Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness. And all of those are a fools errand, except meeting people face to face. Meeting somebody IRL it takes just a few minutes to know if they are trustworthy or not. If the business is severely serious, then you have to do like Genghis Khan and get fully drunk together. Anybody who refuses can never be fully trusted.

> And all of those are a fools errand, except meeting people face to face.

I agree, and that works for IRL only!

But what I am seeing online is a very large push for people to stop calling out obvious LLM prose. One can only guess at the motivations from people who are throwing tantrums that their LLM prose should be allowed, because it's their idea being discussed.

What I am not seeing is them acknowledging the extreme disrespected they are demonstrating for a community when they cannot even bother to type "their" idea.

IOW, if someone doesn't have the time to write it, then we should be making fun of them, shaming them and generally mocking them for losing the use of their brain in a public setting.

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#28

Post by 40four »

I’ve been experimenting with a pet project that aims to solve this problem. “AI detectors” are certainly unreliable, I’m not sure they’ll ever get to a state where you can trust them.

I think concepts like this are the only reliable way to prove something was written by a human. A full replay like this is one way to do it. I think there are some other feasible ways to achieve this, maybe in combination with a full “replay”, but some sort of “proof of work” is the way to go I believe. As LLMs become more ubiquitous, I imagine products that solve the problem can be a real business opportunity.

Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."

#30

Post by sscaryterry »

dylan604 wrote: post #25
kube-system wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could, but the primary motivation to use AI to generate text is because it is fast and easy. You could spend an hour elaborately pretending to write something yourself, or you could simply write it yourself.

Do not misjudge how hard people will work attempting to not work. Work smarter, not harder is not as widely adhered

Yep, do not underestimate human ingenuity when it comes to having not to think.
Post reply on HN