FoxNews is accurate 10% of the time, at best, and it's allegedly produced by humans, so I'm not really seeing the problem here...
GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
31–40 of 120 posts
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#32As millions of people interact with ChatGPT, their writing will subtly, gradually, begin to mimic its style. As future versions of the model are trained on this new text, both human and AI styles will converge until any difference between the two are infinitesimal.
Prediction #1: Once enough ChatGPT output gets posted online, it will inevitably find its way into the training corpus. When that happens, ChatGPT becomes stateful and develops episodic memory.
Prediction #2: As more people discuss ChatGPT online, by late 2023 discussion of Roko's Basilisk exceeds discussion of ChatGPT. (half /s)
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#33As millions of people interact with ChatGPT, their writing will subtly, gradually, begin to mimic its style. As future versions of the model are trained on this new text, both human and AI styles will converge until any difference between the two are infinitesimal.
Prediction #1: Once enough ChatGPT output gets posted online, it will inevitably find its way into the training corpus. When that happens, ChatGPT becomes stateful and develops episodic memory. Prediction #2: As more people discuss ChatGPT online, by late 2023 discussion of Roko's Basilisk exceeds discussion of ChatGPT. (half /s)
Or. ChatGPT will overtrain on it's own data and go to shit the way google search did
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#34I had some fun yesterday when ChatGPT hallucinated a bibliographic reference to an article that didn't exist. But the journal existed, and it had plenty of articles that made ChatGPT's hallucination plausible. I think that at least this use case can be fixed with some pragmatic engineering[^1].
[^1]: Which may take a bit to happen, because our current crop of AI researchers have all taken "The bitter lesson"[^2] to heart.
[^2]: http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#35FoxNews is accurate 10% of the time, at best, and it's allegedly produced by humans, so I'm not really seeing the problem here...
you do it all wrong, it's 90% accurate and 90% sucessfull - its goal to be as inaccurate as possible without its audience realising.
If fox news deletws the last 10% of reality from it's broadcasting, the people might start catching on. Although these days i am not sure
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#36Perhaps AI generated text should be created with a specific signature in mind _specifically_ to be identifiable?
isn’t this essentially asking anyone who runs a model to flip the evil bit[0]? People who want to misrepresent model output as human written output will trivially be able to beat this protection by removing the signature or using a version of the model that simply doesn’t add it.
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
...to AI. It's kinda funny how this is yet another area where these models suck very much in the same way that most humans do. LLMs are bad at arithmetic? So are most people. Can't tell science from babble? I already wouldn't ask a non-expert to rate any aspect of an academic paper. Trusting the average Joe who has only completed some basic form of education would be tremendously stupid. Same with these models. Maybe…
The best was the Ted Chiang article making numerous category errors and forest/trees mistakes in arguing that LLMs just store lossy copies of their training data. It was well-written, plausible, and so very incorrect.
I felt the same way. But I’d love to read a specific critique. Have you seen one?
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#38[dead]
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#39As millions of people interact with ChatGPT, their writing will subtly, gradually, begin to mimic its style. As future versions of the model are trained on this new text, both human and AI styles will converge until any difference between the two are infinitesimal.
Sounds accurate and horrifying, I don't get the enthusiasm for this at all beyond a desire to be there first and make a ton of money. All manuscripts get a run through an AI editor, all business writing is even more soullessly devoid of purpose beyond accomplishing task X, all blogposts are finetuned for maximum engagement and therefore ad/referral revenue.
That's already happening I know but it will be amplified to the point that all humanity in writing in lost. All ideas in writing will be a copy of a copy of a copy and merely resemble something once meaningful. Time to go touch grass.
Re: GPTZero Case Study – Exploring False Positives
#40Just wrote this myself, although I did try to chatGPT-style it a bit. I thought the final third would serve to identify it as non-AI as it goes off on a tangent about isotopes...
> "The periodic table is a systematic ordering of elements by certain charcteristics including: the number of protons they contain, the number of electrons they usually have in their outer shells, and the nature of their partially-filled outermost orbitals."
> "Historically, there have been several different organizational approaches to classifying and grouping the elements, but the modern version originates with Dmitri Mendeleeve, a Russian chemist working in the mid-19th century."
> "However, the periodic table is also somewhat incomplete as it does not immediately reveal the distribution of isotopic variants of the individual elements, although that may be more of an issue for physicists than it is for chemists."
GPTZero says: "Your text is likely to be written entirely by AI"
Now I'm feeling existential dread... perhaps I am an AI running in a simulation and I just don't know it?