121–130 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes fake image, hold it in front of camera, click, verified image...
The signed timestamp and location would give that away, but those would have to become not configurable by the user.
its as Sisyphean a task as AI detection.
Watermarking is a more tractable approach, but the cat is out of the bag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A tool that gives incorrect and inconsistent results shouldn’t have any part of a decision making process. There is no way to know when it’s wrong so you’ll either use it to help justify what you want, or ignore it. Edit: this tool is as reliable as a magic 8-ball
> A tool that gives incorrect and inconsistent results shouldn’t have any part of a decision making process. It can be used for some decision (i.e. not critical ones), but it should NOT be used to accused someone of academic misconduct unless the tool meets a very robust quality standard. > this tool is as reliable as a magic 8-ball Citation needed
The whole silly concept of an "AI detector" is a subset of an even sillier one: the notion that human creative output is somehow unique and inimitable.
I'm glad that they did, although they should obviously done an announcement for it. The amount of people in the ecosystem who thinks it's even possible to detect if something is AI written or not when it's just a couple of sentences is staggering high. And somehow, people in power seems to put their faith in some of these tools that guarantee a certain amount of truthfulness when in reality it's impossible they could…
There's also the post going around about how it can (and does) falsely flag human posts as AI output, particularly among some autistic people. About as useful as a polygraph, no?
Could we not add invisible characters into the text a bit like a water mark?
This tool's been fueling tons of false accusations in academia. Wife is doing her PhD and she often tells me stories about professors falsely accusing students of using ChatGPT.
Eh I am doing my PhD and I use ChatGPT all the time!
The tool in question was used for AI text detection not generation.
I'm glad that they did, although they should obviously done an announcement for it. The amount of people in the ecosystem who thinks it's even possible to detect if something is AI written or not when it's just a couple of sentences is staggering high. And somehow, people in power seems to put their faith in some of these tools that guarantee a certain amount of truthfulness when in reality it's impossible they could…
Even the idea of it is bad, ChatGPT is supposed to write indistinguishably from a human. The "detector" has extremely little information and the only somewhat reasonable criteria are things like style, where ChatGPT certainly has a particular, but by no means unique writing style. And as it gets better it will (by definition) be better at writing in more varied styles.
The point being that it's already possible to change ChatGPT's tone significantly. Think of how many people have done "Write a poem but as if wrote it". The idea that ChatGPT could be reliably detected is kind of silly. It's an interesting problem but not one I'd feel comfortable publishing a tool to solve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One way is trying to sneak in a specific structure/pattern that is difficult for a human to notice when reading, like using a particular sentence length, paragraph length, or punctuation pattern. Or use certain words in the text that may not be frequently used by humans etc. Watermarking needs to be subtle enough to be unnoticeable to opposing parties, yet distinctive enough to be detectable. So, this is an arms race…
> One way is trying to sneak in a specific structure/pattern that is difficult for a human to notice when reading This seems like a total non-starter. That can only negatively impact the answers. A solution needs to be totally decoupled from answer quality.
Their improved method instead only replaces tokens when there's many good choices available, and skips replacing tokens when there are few good choices. "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" - "The quick brown" is not replaceable because it would severely harm the quality.
Essentially it's only replacing tokens where it won't harm the performance.
It's worth noting that any watermarking will likely harm the quality to some degree - but it can be minimized to the point of being viable.