161–170 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any specific reason as to why you'd want to make that, outside of intentionally enabling fraud?
People should be allowed to use any tools they find useful, and their writing should be judged on quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if the decision from Pangram determined, on every assignment, if you would be expelled from university for plagiarism, would that be acceptable to you regardless of how you actually did the work? If you would not be okay with that, what level of consequence would be acceptable for the output from this tool?
>>> "Text is simply not information dense enough to be able to decode some arbitrary signal of provenance from it...it's a bad fiction to perpetuate that any of this is anything more than tarot card reading." >> Not true at all. Pangram is highly effective and has a very low false positive rate. > So, if the decision from Pangram determined, on every assignment, if you would be expelled from university for plagiarism…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m wrong about. The comment I was responding to, about changing LLM output, referred to prompting, not temp/sampling tricks. I’m not aware of Pangram being beat by clever prompting. There’s some interesting work on creative writing using contrastive prompt techniques, but I haven’t seen it tried as evasion. Even if you control temp and sampling, they’re not magic. If you raise the tem…
As min-p approaches 1, the temperature you can get away with approaches infinity. Also more modern samplers like top-n-sigma are explicitly designed to get away with temperature of infinity.
Other papers have tried to beat it with temperature and it didn’t work, although I haven’t seen anyone try insane levels.
Give it a shot and let me know if you have any success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all humans are in their right minds, unfortunately.
This is exactly the point I saw in a recent x post, that building anti-bot detection was incredibly difficult because some people exhibit bot like behavior. Blizzard employee once told me anti-botting in WoW was extremely challenging due to the number of real people that acted identically to bots. Every assumption was invalidated: - unbelievable # of consecutive hours played - consistently repetitive patterns of move…
Text is simply not information dense enough to be able to decode some arbitrary signal of provenance from it. Sure you might be able to detect today's tells (particular sentence structures preferred by Claude, phrases, etc) to get you some arbitrary chance percentage it was machine generated, but it's a bad fiction to perpetuate that any of this is anything more than tarot card reading. Images, absolutely, there are…
> Text is simply not information dense enough to be able to decode some arbitrary signal of provenance from it. This does not sit well with personal experience and I wonder if it is just one of these questions of AI people being unaware of the level of skill that exists in domains they think have been automated. It is of course possible that my tendency to spot LLM-written text has much to do with the way that it sou…
I suspect the difficulty here lies more with your reading of the quoted sentence. British grammar school education, for all the years it devotes to the enterprise, does not always succeed in teaching reading comprehension.
You seem to be treating two rather different propositions as though they were one and the same. If text in general is not sufficiently information dense to support decoding some _arbitrary_ signal of provenance, that hardly establishes that no _specific_ passage can carry distinctive markers of provenance.
For example, you can recognize the unmistakable cadence of the California undergraduate. Impressive. Alas, even in your own example, when your British friends are "giving themselves away", you resort to an external signal, beyond the text, to determine provenance! That is, unless the text itself is claiming that its author is British (like the bots who claim they're John Horsetrader from Arkansas oblast).
When you have to decide whether a 2010s era SAT essay was from a SAT prep book author or an LLM prompted to write such an essay, you will struggle to distinguish one from the other. Not all texts have provenance signals. This is what it means for text to simply not be information dense enough to be able to decode some arbitrary signal of provenance from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Text is simply not information dense enough to be able to decode some arbitrary signal of provenance from it. This does not sit well with personal experience and I wonder if it is just one of these questions of AI people being unaware of the level of skill that exists in domains they think have been automated. It is of course possible that my tendency to spot LLM-written text has much to do with the way that it sou…
> This does not sit well with personal experience and I wonder if it is just one of these questions of AI people being unaware of the level of skill that exists in domains they think have been automated. I suspect the difficulty here lies more with your reading of the quoted sentence. British grammar school education, for all the years it devotes to the enterprise, does not always succeed in teaching reading comprehe…
Well aren't you a genuine delight?
> Alas, even in your own example, when your British friends are "giving themselves away", you resort to an external signal, beyond the text, to determine provenance!
A possibility I addressed in the actual text you are responding to, where I started the sentence with "It is of course possible" and continued to clarify that "...so many of the situations…" I encounter it are localised.
It's almost like I was expressing just such an awareness of the limits of my assertion, isn't it?
I could be wrong, but I just don’t see how trying to “detect” LLM generated texts is ever going to work. The only thing that makes any sense if you truly want to have confidence a human wrote it is some type of “proof of work“ system. I think there’s a lot of interesting ways to approach the proof of work problem with different pros and cons, but that is where our energy should be focused if we seriously want to solv…
> I just don’t see how trying to “detect” LLM generated texts is ever going to work He literally demonstrated a working system in this post. Do you mean you'll never get to 100% accuracy? Clearly, but you don't need that.
But how useful is it really to get a result of “This is 80% likely chance of being LLM generated”? Or 75%, or 95%? What if the text is a mix of human written text and LLM text? How would you even begin to test that?
I suppose a text that is half human half LLM would theoretically score in the 50% range, but do you see the problem? You can slap a confidence % score on a test run, but interpreting the results leads to a whole other can of worms.
Point is there are so many variables, and it’s not clear that the result from any of the systems is even valid or applicable to help you make a decision in a real life situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you can train a system to detect these patterns, presumably you can train systems not to generate text which matches them? I don't know. I mean, it feels like the systems that would detect them are likely qualitatively different to the machines that make them. One of the things that feels obvious to me is that LLMs are always going to write in a new way, because words do not get all that close to perfectly conve…
Perhaps mistral will save us all from sounding like Californians. But sure it’s grand, you know yourself :-) (Haven’t lived in California in a long time now)
Perhaps ;-)
Text is simply not information dense enough to be able to decode some arbitrary signal of provenance from it. Sure you might be able to detect today's tells (particular sentence structures preferred by Claude, phrases, etc) to get you some arbitrary chance percentage it was machine generated, but it's a bad fiction to perpetuate that any of this is anything more than tarot card reading. Images, absolutely, there are…
The article discusses a technique by which the author achieves high accuracy at detecting AI written text. Unless you have a problem with their experimental method, this is the opposite of tarot card reading. > we are well into undetectable sophistication with today's models The article directly contradicts this, as do you, in your previous paragraph: "Sure you might be able to detect today's tells". The article is l…