It’s a 100% match on what the model was trained on.
Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein is the doctor. Wisdom is knowing that Shelley vibe coded the entire story.
Ahead of her time. But, then again, we all knew that.
We’re using AI to determine what is AI, even though AI doesn’t know what AI is.
Perfectly reasonable, no careers will be destroyed, surely
To be fair, the monster was artificial and intelligent.
And this is the “unseen” loss of value. Can you imagine writing a book (by hand the old-fashioned way – maybe with just a text editor) and submitting it to publish and the publisher rejects it as “written by AI?”
This is absolutely the biggest source of anxiety I have right now as someone who has been writing a really heartfelt novel for over a decade. (Things got delayed due to… personal stuff. Also I started drinking beer like a proper author. It didn’t help, actually.)
Back when I started this, I had been publishing some short stories under CC licences. I guess that has to be an option once again (and as much as I hate it as an open source nerd, -NC might make an appearance.)
I realized my assignment went through an originality checker, which I guess is safer than calling it a plagiarism checker.
Still felt odd that it flagged a quote I used from the source book, in the section asking for a quotation. I would’ve thought it’d at least disregard things between quotation marks.
What’s even dumber is that it flagged a single instance of the word “the”, just the word not the sentence it was in. I don’t know why, but I guess that specific “the” was unoriginal.
yeah, quotes and citations.
When I was in college all my papers were automatically submitted to TurnItIn when I uploaded them to the submission Dropbox. Every use of the singular word “the” was flagged as plagiarism. Every time.
Call me a dishonest copying cheater.
Btw the originality checker in my comment was also TurnItIn, so we’ve experienced the same thing.
You just have to pray to the RNG, and hope your 100% honest, original, hard work, is not flagged by some stupid ass AI.
This is how much damage AI has done.
You copied it from here didn’t you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The
I think you stole it from Hamlet. I’m pretty sure I saw the in Hamlet.
If the tool disregards quotations, a clever student would wrap entire papers in white-colored quotation marks!
Those detector sites are really evil. They simply do not work. They can’t work. But they are advertising and people are using them to “check” texts. Which then totally fucks students when their idiotic teacher uses such a site and accuses them of using AI tools.
I wonder if everything uploaded to them gets used as LLM training data
i worry about this. all my writing in grad school, likely fed to a machine.
I had to let out a depressed chuckle when someone referred to Pangram as “industry standard”. …just because that particular service had been the centre of the Shy Girl controversy and they had dragged themselves to the limelight again when another novel got accused of AI use.
The Shy Girl controversy is a doozy. People raised their eyebrows and thought the novel was written with AI. Pangram CEO elbowed his way to the limelight and proved, using his fine AI product, that this novel is [insert some absurdly specific high percentage] AI. The author was like “Well I handed my novel to someone else, and they used AI to copyedit the book!” The publisher was like “So you used someone else afterall, after declaring you were the sole author? Consider the publishing agreement revoked.” People were like “Due to AI use, right? 😀 Due to AI use, right? 😕” The publisher was like “…No, we have a few AI projects cooking.”
I was having a conversation with someone here who claimed to be a professor (I believe it) and went on and on about how they are a subject matter expert and that AI detection actually works really well these days. I told him I felt bad for his students and he had a full blown insult laden meltdown at me then deleted everything.
I just feel bad for those students.
Does it think it’s AI because it was trained on it so it recognizes it as being part of AI now?
It was posted like some kind of gotcha but…this book was in the dataset.
I’m aware that LLMs don’t keep the dataset in memory but it “knows” that this is an existing work but these sites aren’t doing any wild calculations to figure out if it was AI-generated. They basically just check to see if the sentences exist elsewhere and they do. In the original dataset.
So it was wrong to say it’s AI-generated but it correctly identified that it’s not original.
They do keep it.
The phenomena of regurgitation is a strong evidence on it, for example.
They analyze statistical patterns, they don’t cross reference the training data.
It’s picking up the text as generated because it’s mostly guess work and constantly spits out false positives, especially with non native speakers.
Honestly I didn’t expect them to flag non-native speakers. LLMs don’t often make gramatical mistakes (or at least not ones your average joe could identify)
Foreign speakers often know English better than most Americans
I’m sorry, what? It’s correctly identified that it’s what, now?
It’s original in the book. What the user entered is an exact copy.
“Original” is not the correct work but you know what I mean.
That is not in the least bit how a tool like this works.
All AI detection is extremely unreliable, but they operate on principles which, if the assumptions supporting them were true, would be sound. The way you imagine they work is different: you’re describing a “novel text detector” which is not at all the same thing as an “AI text detector”.
AI detection works, at a very high level, by throwing a bunch of examples of AI text, and a bunch of examples of non-AI text, into a machine-learning model, and training it until it is able to recognise the AI examples as such. It doesn’t work by throwing in all existing text including novels written before AI, because that would never do what you want.
(The reason, if you’re interested, why this ends up not working is because the features such a model identifies as indicative of AI text are very sensitive: if you train it on Claude and ChatGPT, it will not work on Gemini output. If you train it on Gemini, when Gemini updates it will get worse. If someone generates text with a weird prompt, it may slip by. If someone writes in a weird way, it may get flagged. And if any AI company wanted to defeat AI detectors, it could trivially feed its output through one during the training process and give that output as examples to avoid in the training, so that the model learns to create output which doesn’t “look like” AI output to those detectors.)
I was being overly simplistic - I meant more that the patterns it’s trying to detect were created by an LLM trained on the data they’re inputting.
It’s like how reddit comments from 2016 look generated. If you stick one of those into an AI detector, it’ll give a false positive for the same reason
AI slop checking AI slop.
Why are people so quick to place their faith in machines?
ah so the truth is revealed. ai detectors dont really detect ai use, they detect the content they stole to train on.
No, they detect AI use, which is correlated with paraphrases of the content they stole from.
Also, this whole idea that AI detectors don’t work is tired. GPTZero has sub 1% false positive rate for creative writing. What more do you want.
i want it to fuck off
Yeah, me too. But until we get laws in place banning AI (and reducing their board of directors to mulch), we should try to support detecting and punishing its use. GPTZero specifically has very high accuracy. Some of the other detectors really suck.
But until we get laws in place banning AI (and reducing their board of directors to mulch), we should try to support detecting and punishing its use.
What exactly do you think drives the AI detectors?
Wow. Are you implying if we eliminate AI we will eliminate AI detectors? My 90 IQ brain was just blown.
Answer the question.
Edit: All right, since you won’t, I’ll spell it out for you. It’s AI. The AI detectors are AI models. You are suggesting we put the policing of AI use in the hands of AI. It’s not even close to a good idea. It’s nothing less than self-defeating.
If you’re going to accuse someone of plagiarism you need to be more than 99.9% accurate.
Yeah, no. Accuse isn’t convict.
Also, as a teacher I would literally already know they cheated. AI writing is easy to spot. Ironically, it’s always people who can’t write who are super concerned about their writing being exposed for AI. Never do I hear creative writing majors or English majors or philosophy majors express a shred of concern. It’s always the STEM lords or high schoolers. I wonder why that is?
This just comes off like you’re biased against any students who are into STEM fields and favor the ones in the liberal arts.
“People who speak out against this are of no consequence” is not a rebuttal of the argument.
It’s just weird that all the writing-intensive majors aren’t worried about being “falsely accused.” Almost as if it’s a non-issue unless you actually can’t write.
Look at those poor business and CS majors. Simultaneously illiterate and also very concerned about being accused of using AI to write.
What in the world are you talking about? None of these scores are bad at all. 149/170 is a score of 87.6%, at collegiate level. Characterizing that as “illiterate” is ludicrous.
AI writing that you have spotted is super easy to spot.
When used for cheating by a student you see a lot, it’s almost certainly going to be super easy to spot.
The appeal for cheating is that it skips the work. If they skip the work, they didn’t rework the GenAI output. Even if the GenAI output could pass for a human, it’s not going to pass for that human that you know.
Also, advanced classes make ‘homework’ barely count, so even if you got away with cheating, the in-person assessments are going to ruin your grade.
What do you think my accuracy would be for high school essays given that I’ve read maybe 10,000 of them? This whole conversation is making me cringe. I’m out.
In my experience, highschool teachers could not be bothered to look over or grade assignments. They would do a lazy “what grade do you think you deserve” essay at the start of the year and carry that grade that you gave yourself through the remaining terms regardless of how much work you did or did not do, even missing that mandatory assignments were skipped.
Suppose the question is why even use the tool if you can tell by looking.
I’m guessing it’s because if you just say it, they’ll argue or maybe get their parents to argue and if you can have a ‘detector’ serve as ‘evidence’? Especially if they believe in the tool to use in the first place, they are likely to believe in the detector tool, no mater how flawed? Or to just serve as a general deterrent, your work is being checked by a machine and you’ll get caught if you try…
I’ll say at least some kids are scared of being falsely accused of cheating because they don’t trust the tools to be accurate, perhaps more so in the very anti-AI kids that would avoid the AI like the plague. No perfect answer how you reassure that the tool isn’t immediately trusted without also defanging it to the intended audience in that case though…
Luckily, previous drafts are automatically saved in most word processors, but you’re right. It’s a hideous new world.
Why would you ever trust such numbers?
Why would I trust independently published research in addition to my own vast professional experience? You’re right. Internet forums are much more reliable.
All the villagers of the data center got their pitchforks.
The monster was created by a vibe-surgeon.
Loved it when he met The AI Bride of Frankenstein.
The Al Bride of Frankenstein?
The AI Bride of Frankenstein.
