161–170 of 171 posts
> Desperate, Michael even reached out to the company providing the AI test. To no avail. They simply told him he should set up an account with them, buy himself some credits, and test his articles again himself. At the end of the day, nothing changed the fact that there was this all-encompassing metric being thrown at him saying: You are cheating. Snake Oil Company: "This person's articles were probably -- to almost…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same. I'm not sure there are many organizations out there applying AI detectors to writers they've had an existing, extensive relationship with, and then also giving a fuck if it pops up as a hit but they have no other complaints about the writing. My wife's fairly connected to the writing world and I've not heard of this being a thing at all . Doesn't mean it's not anywhere, but if it were widespread I th…
My experience is that I have to write some things that often have parts that are, for lack of a better word, somewhat boilerplate, e.g. preamble/background/explain some technical term I used/etc. Necessary but not core technical or otherwise differentiated content. I've used LLMs for this as a sort of first draft. I edit the output but it's a perfectly serviceable way to get some words down and save me an hour or two…
If you needed to throw in a sentence or two ahout, e.g., what load balancing is, you're better off lifting a definition from an authoritative source than trying to come up with a "creative" rephrasing for its own sake. Standard terminology is standard because it works.
There's a key sentence hidden right at the end of this article: > They were terrified of Google downranking any AI-generated content, and because of the apparently clear results from their AI checker, they couldn’t be convinced otherwise. It sounds to me like the client might even have believed the evidence that he provided them showing that he didn't use AI to write the work... ... but they're in the SEO game, and t…
This pattern has precedent. I scan releases with a bunch of Anti-Virus software. Not to find any virus, of course, but if one of the scanning softwares "detects" a virus, some customer is also going to "detect" the virus, and we have a problem.
I’ma Googler, but had to try five search queries to find the name. Obviously didn’t try this in ages, but it used to be straightforward (and list which AV software was used in the scan).
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…
Let's turn around and look at this from the company's point of view, rather than the freelancer's. The company is looking for text that ranks well on Google SEO. That is what the writer is asked to create. The company has cause to fear that anything that looks even remotely AI generated will be flagged and penalized by Google. Google does this regularly, is a black box, and regularly destroys companies when they do i…
Except Google isn't doing what the company thinks it's doing. AI detectors don't work. Using one as a search ranking signal would make search worse by erroneously down-ranking false positives. Google knows this, so it's reasonable to assume they aren't relying on AI detectors. That makes what the company did stupid, especially if they now have to pay to rewrite the content so that it 'beats' that detector's utterly u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If students what to deprive themselves of the opportunity to learn then that's their perogative.
Yes but this only further waters down the already watered down legitimacy of a degree. I know a lot of people think students should be building things independently of classes but that kind of misses the point of dedicating a full time investment in guided learning at the hands of an expert instructor. If instructors graded rigorously and had a magic cheating detection too (where cheating is defined overly capaciousl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Google isn't doing what the company thinks it's doing. AI detectors don't work. Using one as a search ranking signal would make search worse by erroneously down-ranking false positives. Google knows this, so it's reasonable to assume they aren't relying on AI detectors. That makes what the company did stupid, especially if they now have to pay to rewrite the content so that it 'beats' that detector's utterly u…
The point in this case is that it doesn’t matter what Google is doing or whether AI detectors work or not. What matters is making the client happy.
You're often put in the position where your choices are to get fired or do what they want and watch their sales and search rankings tank. Unfortunately, 'I told you so' doesn't seem to cut much ice when that happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which text did you enter, and into which AI detector? I tried it with my blog, and it was correctly identified by Copy Leaks as written by a human. I don't know how representative https://copyleaks.com/blog/ai-detector-continues-top-accurac... is, but certainly all of them are getting above phrenology detection rates. Even with this guy, the problem wasn't that it misidentified him as AI. It was that "we can't tell"…
""we can't tell" got turned into, "we can't risk" Oh god, we've developed yet another shitty lie detector.
In my experience, anyone who can write at a post high school level is accused of being an AI by everyone who can't.
It's interesting to hear about your experience, and it highlights a common phenomenon in the digital age. As technology advances, it's becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between human and AI-generated content, especially when it comes to writing. The ability of AI models to generate coherent and well-structured text at a post-high school level has indeed improved significantly in recent years. While it'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a certificate of authenticity. You can lie about whether you used AI or not, but your reputation would be demolished if you were found out. You could have proof-of-humanity parties, like key-signing parties. (Partying 'cause you're human seems like a good enough reason.) The reputation would be an asset of yours, a post-monetary currency.
Aah OK, so this is more about signing something in a way that proves you produced it and then saying "I swear I didn't use AI for this, and I'm willing to stake my cryptographic reputation on it".