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

Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#91

Post by immibis »

h00kwurm wrote: post #84
slashdave wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is soundly unfair and unjustified to extrapolate the ML community to all professions. What is happening in the ML world is the exception, not the norm, and not some fundamental failing of society.

I don’t think it’s an extrapolation from the ML community into other industries. This evolution of society is objectively happening - artisanship, care for the work beyond capital gain, and commitment to depth in a focused category - are diminishing and harder to find qualities. I’d probably label it related to capital and material social economics. It’s perhaps more unfair and unjustified to not recognize this as a…

Just yesterday I saw this YouTube rant from someone called Jaiden Animations, about how everything is just shit now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBZv0_MImIY

She opens with an example of a bank. She walked in and asked for a debit card. The teller told her to take a seat. 30 minutes later, the teller told her the bank doesn't issue debit cards. Firstly, what kind of bank doesn't issue debit cards, and secondly, what kind of bank takes 30 minutes to figure out whether or not it issues debit cards? And this is just one of many examples of things that society does that have no reason not to work, that should have been selected away long ago if they did not work - that bank should have been bankrupt long ago - but for some reason this is not happening and everything is just getting clogged with bullshit and non-working solutions.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#92

Post by jmpeax »

maxspero wrote: post #71
slashdave wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"proof" was an unfortunate phrase to use. However, a proper statistical analysis can be objective. And these kinds of tools are perfectly suited to such an analysis.

Yeah, Pangram does not provide any concrete proof, but it confirms many people's suspicions about their reviews. But it does flag reviews for a human to take a closer look and see if the review is flawed, low-effort, or contains major hallucinations.

> does not provide any concrete proof, but it confirms many people's suspicions

Without proof there is no confirmation.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#93

Post by wordpad »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #89
maxspero wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are dozens of first generation AI detectors and they all suck. I'm not going to defend them. Most of them use perplexity based methods, which is a decent separators of AI and human text (80-90%) but has flaws that can't be overcome and high FPRs on ESL text. https://www.pangram.com/blog/why-perplexity-and-burstiness-f... Pangram is fundamentally different technology, it's a large deep learning based model that…

Some people see a dozen extremely profitable, extremely destructive attempts at a problem as proof that the problem is not a place for charitable interpretation.

And you don't think a dozen of basically scams around the technology justify extreme scepticism?

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#94

Post by [deleted] »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #86
nialse wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing points out that the benchmark is invalid like a zero false positive rate. Seemingly it is pre-2020 text vs a few models rework of texts. I can see this model fall apart in many real world scenarios. Yes, LLMs use strange language if left to their own devices and this can surely be detected. 0% false positive rate under all circumstances? Implausible.

> Nothing points out that the benchmark is invalid like a zero false positive rate You’re punishing them for claiming to do a good job. If they truly are doing a bad job, surely there is a better criticism you could provide.

[deleted]

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#95

Post by yumraj »

Serious question: if the research itself is valid and human conducted, what is the problem with AI generated (or at least AI assisted) report?

Many of the researchers may not have native command of English and even if, AI can help in writing in general.

Obviously I’m not referring to pure AI generated BS.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#96

Post by anonymouskimmer »

maxspero wrote: post #69
rs186 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The response would be more helpful if it directly addresses the arguments in posts from that search result.

There are dozens of first generation AI detectors and they all suck. I'm not going to defend them. Most of them use perplexity based methods, which is a decent separators of AI and human text (80-90%) but has flaws that can't be overcome and high FPRs on ESL text. https://www.pangram.com/blog/why-perplexity-and-burstiness-f... Pangram is fundamentally different technology, it's a large deep learning based model that…

Can your software detect which LLMs most likely generated a text?

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#97

Post by starchild3001 »

AI-text detection software is BS. Let me explain why.

Many of us use AI to not write text, but re-write text. My favorite prompt: "Write this better." In other words, AI is often used to fix awkward phrasing, poor flow, bad english, bad grammar etc.

It's very unlikely that an author or reviewer purely relies on AI written text, with none of their original ideas incorporated.

As AI detectors cannot tell rewrites from AI-incepted writing, it's fair to call them BS.

Ignore...

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#98

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

wordpad wrote: post #93
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people see a dozen extremely profitable, extremely destructive attempts at a problem as proof that the problem is not a place for charitable interpretation.

And you don't think a dozen of basically scams around the technology justify extreme scepticism?

huh?

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#99

Post by hyperadvanced »

circuit10 wrote: post #42
hyperadvanced wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need proof anyway? Do you need proof that sentences are poorly constructed, misleading, or bloated? Why not just say “make it sound less like GPT” and let them deal with it?

You can have sentences that are perfectly fine but have some markers of ChatGPT like "it's not just X — it's Y" (which may or may not mean it's generated)

Isn’t that kind of thing (reliance on cliché) already a valid reason for getting marked down?

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#100

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

maxspero wrote: post #49
jampa wrote: post #6

While I think there's significant AI "offloading" in writing, the article's methodology relies on "AI-detectors," which reads like PR for Pangram. I don't need to explain why AI detectors are mostly bullshit and harmful for people who have never used LLMs. [1] 1: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I am not sure if you are familiar with Pangram (co-founder here) but we are a group of research scientists who have made significant progress in this problem space. If your mental model of AI detectors is still GPTZero or the ones that say the declaration of independence is AI, then you probably haven't seen how much better they've gotten. This paper by economists from the University of Chicago economists found zero…

Are you concerned with your product being used to improve AI to be less detectable?
Post reply on HN