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

It Wasn't AI

itwasntai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: It Wasn't AI

#121

Post by ShamelessC »

JohnFen wrote: post #48
simonw wrote: post #5

On the one hand, this is sorely needed: AI detection software will inevitably be mostly snake oil. Academia and education desperately wants this software to work! As a result, selling them something that doesn't work is going to be very profitable. The most obvious problem with this class of software is how easy it would be to defeat if the students could access it themselves: generate some text, run it through the d…

> AI detection software will inevitably be mostly snake oil. Probably so. The problem, of course, is that the inability to detect AI authorship leads to the increase of general distrust of everything in society.

That ship sailed with social media unfortunately.

Re: It Wasn't AI

#122

Post by dweinus »

What if we just let cheaters cheat? If they don't have the knowledge, they won't last long in a job that requires it. As the saying goes "You're only cheating yourself"

Re: It Wasn't AI

#123

Post by benhoyt »

kuratkull wrote: post #96
benhoyt wrote: post #92

I've been reviewing answers to questionnaires we send out to potential software engineering candidates. Sometimes candidates seem to write 90% of the submission themselves, and then use ChatGPT for the last couple of questions (which are more general, like "Outline your thoughts on documentation in software projects"). I joked to a colleague that I'd come up with a fool-proof ChatGPT detector in one line of Python: i…

Don't forget "Overall, "

Indeed! I just saw this in a submission I was reviewing now. AI writing is well-structured but extremely boring and generic.

Re: It Wasn't AI

#124

Post by ptdn »

I am compelled to point out that in one of the info pages, the site includes screenshots of a conversation with ChatGPT where the author claims to trick AI detection by generating text with a lower temperature. But asking ChatGPT, through the LLM interface, to lower the temperature doesn't lower the temperature. There's no mechanism for it to do so. It may have some (nevertheless real) placebo effect, because the LLM thinks it should behave different and assigns some vague "meaning" to "temperature" -- but this isn't a technical change to the model operation.

Re: It Wasn't AI

#125

Post by soulofmischief »

aripickar wrote: post #12

IMO one of the way that most schools are going to end up being able to detect plagiarism is going to be a custom word processor (or something similar) that can track all of the edits made into a document. Basically, have the students type an essay where all of the keystrokes are recorded by the program, and so it can be detected by the program whether someone is copy and pasting whole essays, or if someone is actuall…

Or we will move on to teaching higher conceptual skills which are actually relevant to a post-AI society.

Re: It Wasn't AI

#126

Post by zzzeek »

kunley wrote: post #43
zzzeek wrote: post #23

With the advent of new technology, so must entire practices and industries spring up to counteract the inherent harm this technology will cause and is already causing. is it a given that technological progress will often necessitate societal harm? Is such technological progress actually progress for humanity? there seems to be this universal notion that "things that can be built will be built and are inevitable". It…

Very well put. Why not to build nukes massively? Nukes are inevitable, because in the human nature there is inherent hunger for power (ask any psychologist nearby), and nukes are the ultimate power. With nukes at reasonable prices for wealthy families, the notion of an "atomic family" would really get a new exciting meaning! I am ofc sarcastic, but the reasoning is IMO the same like with the AI.. The real question he…

if you could build a nuke in your garage, the world would have ended long ago. the extreme difficulty, expense, and industrial-grade complexity in handling and enriching uranium and then forming it into a viable weapon is the only thing that kept that from happening

Re: It Wasn't AI

#127

Post by dv_dt »

cwkoss wrote: post #111
dv_dt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent whose student has worked with multiple essay entry editors/forms, they're almost all terrible with most students having to revert to writing the essay outside the system or risk losing their work multiple times. And this was with a simple editor - not more complex connections to even more sophisticated systems. The budget available for educational technology is not sufficient to maintain the operation of…

Yeah, then you get a bunch of non-cheating students who are intelligent and just annoyed with the text editor will use cheating tools to insert their essay they wrote in a proper word processor - further poisoning the dataset.

“cheating tools” = cut and paste

Re: It Wasn't AI

#128

Post by hgsgm »

jamilton wrote: post #85
rorroe53 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should educational instutions care? Education is a business, students are the customers (or in countries with state-funded education, the government). If AI helps people graduate faster, that's more money to the institutions, less effort to the students, and nice statistics for the governments. At least in my country most degrees aren't worth much anyway, they just open you doors to internships where you real…

Governments paying for education don't just want graduations, they want an educated workforce, because there are benefits from having that. Instructors generally do not treat education like a business. On some level the institutions themselves often are business-like, but on the classroom level I don't think that's the case.

The "educted workforce" the government wants is not for liberal arts essays. The government wants technical training like nursing.

Re: It Wasn't AI

#129

Post by cookieperson »

ShamelessC wrote: post #121
JohnFen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI detection software will inevitably be mostly snake oil. Probably so. The problem, of course, is that the inability to detect AI authorship leads to the increase of general distrust of everything in society.

That ship sailed with social media unfortunately.

Wait... Are you saying that I shouldn't be eating tide pods?

Re: It Wasn't AI

#130

Post by refulgentis »

dahwolf wrote: post #114
refulgentis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is up with these snowflake neues, posting bitter over-the-top political comments? They stick out like a sore thumb in spring 2023. It flew under the radar more when everyone was short-tempered, say winter 2021. The people who are still stuck on it and in their own heads seem to have a __negative__ herding effect. There's a seed of irrationality that drives some, and as there's fewer, they stick out more, making…

What's up with catastrophizing an obvious joke? See, if you'd intellectually engage in good faith, you'd understand the point that one of few (if not the only) reliable ways to tell apart AI from humans in the future would be human shortcomings. A misguided offense extrapolated into pseudo-intellectual tone policing is a beautiful example of that, so you pass.

“Catastrophizing” lol. I wish you all the best, and hope you feel better soon my friend.
Post reply on HN