I postulated exactly these issues with detecting LLM code in software projects, making “no LLM code”-type policies unenforceable. It doesn’t work most of the time now, and it will only get worse in the future.
Before anyone goes on a wild goose chase, this excerpt is on the opening of Chapter 4 instead of 5 in the first edition.
Anyone surprised to find that public domain art is determined to be AI generated does not realize that feeding an LLM requires a lot of art, and public domain is the easiest one to come across. AI detectors, as far as I know, check AI signs, and (most) AI signs came from their use by public domain artworks.
I made a machine with the purpose of literally creating output that plausibly sounds like a human wrote it.
Now that it creates things that sound plausibly like they came from a real person it’s a problem. Now quick make something else that pretends to know it’s not human when the whole point of the damn machine is to sound human.
Tjciiktn it’s ridiculous. HMsie?$+'izhav!&(:8_! This world is so fucked
confidently incorrect
Yeah yeah AI system has false positives. Like a human, really. In fact humans are pretty bad at detecting AI text: https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087
Among AI models, Blenderbot stood out: in AI-AI conversations, it was judged human 67% of the times - more often than actual human-human conversations. In human-AI conversations, human participants were labeled as humans 68% of the time, and AIs were classified as AI 56% of the time.
(FYI, a detection rate of 50% is the same as random chance, so 56% is pretty poor)
The point of the post is there is no way to reliably detect it as it just reproduces what it was trained on.
A human also did not take a trillion $ of investment to be able to produce this false output.
Shit like this happens if you train your AI on every god damn fucking text on earth.
I’ve been commenting on the open, public internet in some form or fashion since the 1900s. These models have been trained to sound like me, not the other way around. Fortunately, the bullies at the back of the class who don’t pay attention have mostly caught on to this fact, after having it repeated to them hundreds of times. The other day I was thinking about it, and realized it’s been a bit since anybody’s accused me of using AI to write a comment. I think it’s because I stopped proofreading what I write. Leave in those mistakes and the assholes at the back of the room who don’t pay attention are too naive to think that machines can’t make mistakes, I guess.
What was the Internet like in 1900? IP over Avian Carriers?
Is this it? My first Lemmy inside joke? I feel honored
If you meant “IP over Avian Carriers”, that is a joke everywhere with nerds. It was an inside joke within the IETF. Sorry to break that to you.
No we didn’t have birds back then, they hadn’t evolved yet.
They still haven’t because birds aren’t real.
RFC 1149
Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein is the doctor. Wisdom is knowing that Shelley vibe coded the entire story.
Objectively Frankenstein is the monster and a terrible father.
It’s a 100% match on what the model was trained on.
false positives exist, and the real monster is that it also happens with “faces” of criminals.
Personally, I would have put the quotes around “criminals”
Yeah… I was half asleep… It’s like quote dyslexia or smth.
No, you see, they are not the real faces!
To be fair, the monster was artificial and intelligent.
You don’t create a thriving breakfast cereal brand without top tier smarts
Or Smurfs.
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
Yeah, the AI based “AI detectors” are themselves slop.
Ummmm. Thats not how this works . .
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.)
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.
Everything you said was hallucinated. Nothing you said was even slightly coherent or connected with reality. Absolutely nothing was correct. If you let your cat dance on the keyboard more sense would come out.
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)
Weirdly enough i saw a massive increase in little typoes on reddit this year. More typoes and such in a few months than i saw in years.
It feels like LLMs started making mistakes on purpose.
Foreign speakers often know English better than most Americans
Oooh yeah, the most common dumb mistakes are (by my own checking) done by Americans in the VAST majority cases. Stuff like not knowing how to use your/you’re, there/their/they’re, cloths/clothes, definitely/defiantly, where/were/we’re, its/it’s etc. correctly and the many other failings of basic grammar like “would/could of” and so much else.
I don’t think there’s another country in the world where the native speakers are so fucking bad at even the most basic shit.
The most common response I’ve gotten and seen when others correct stuff like that is “calm down, English probability isn’t their main language” yet when checking it’s been Americans who made the mistakes 99% of the time.I was going to say:
The difference is between growing up, learning a language by hearing and making the sounds, and learning it as a foreign language, having to understand and memorize the rules.
“They’re, their, there” all sound the same as well as “could’ve, could of”.But interestingly other English speakers don’t make those mistakes as often as people emerging from the american education system.
And are also less prone to use slang unless they go more deep in the culture
The decline I’ve seen in my time on the internet is genuinely shocking
ya we used 2 jst tlk lyk dis b4 t9 bcam irlvnt
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
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.
Yes, but if that were true, then every single book ever published would be flagged. The training data is for teaching it patterns, not just cross-referencing.
The little scale thing doesn’t say it is 100% not original, it says it is AI/LLM generated.
Yes…because the pasted text has some of the exact patterns that are part of the dataset that the website trained on…because that dataset contains text generated from a dataset containing the exact paragraph…
I feel like you’re being deliberately obtuse.
I feel like you don’t understand the difference between ‘AI generated’ and ‘something that existed over 200 years ago’.
I feel like you don’t understand that LLMs train on text that existed 200 years ago…
They do keep it.
The phenomena of regurgitation is a strong evidence on it, for example.
