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 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
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
Abrevs 4evr
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.
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.
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.
That must have sounded really clever and powerful in your head for you to hit send, huh? Couldn’t decide which zinger to go with so you sent all 4?
I’d have given you more credit if you just posted the quote from Billy Madison. Try harder lol
No it just annoys me when people have no understanding of how shit works and just make up an explanation instead of looking it up. Hell you could have asked chatGPT and probably got a correct answer.
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.
You copied it from here didn’t you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The
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.
If the tool disregards quotations, a clever student would wrap entire papers in white-colored quotation marks!
yeah, quotes and citations.
Uses Ai to detect the use of Ai
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.
It’s a 100% match on what the model was trained on.
Shit like this happens if you train your AI on every god damn fucking text on earth.
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.
So, all the AI bullshit floating around, along with the requisite tech bros owners, is beneficial to society as a whole because they steal art that was no longer protected by copyright? My first question is always “If it all went away would anything change?”.
I did not claim at any point that AI was beneficial to society. I just indicated that AI was trained on public domain artwork
Fair enough. My bad.
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.
Yeah no we definitely realize that.
Wouldn’t that mean that it should be better at identifying public domain work?
Go tell the AI detectors…
Only if they cared.
ah so the truth is revealed. ai detectors dont really detect ai use, they detect the content they stole to train on.
deleted by creator
i want it to fuck off
deleted by creator
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’re super worried about getting “falsely” caught using AI. Never do I hear creative writing majors or English majors or philosophy majors express a shred of concern. I wonder why that is?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I had the same experience with High School English teachers… I was a straight C student through school. No matter what I did I couldn’t break through a C, especially in English class.
Then one year a new teacher came to school and early in the school year she gave us an assignment to teach something to the class. This type of assignment was where I shined because it wasn’t the typical, boring work… so I dove in. I made sheets for the overhead projector, I had handouts, and overall I knew my shit. I got an A on the assignment. And every assignment after that. Once I forgot to do my homework, but she had told us that we need to turn in something, even if it’s a blank sheet with our name on it… so that’s what I did. I got an A. I actually had that hanging in my bedroom for a while because I felt it told me a lot about how the world works. At the end of the school year I got an award for ‘most improved in English’. The next year, I was a C student again.
This just comes off like you’re biased against any students who are into STEM fields and favor the ones in the liberal arts.
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…
deleted by creator
Until you see it in practise. People around me that are studying are getting flagged constantly.
Marketing.
deleted by creator
Loved it when he met The AI Bride of Frankenstein.
The Al Bride of Frankenstein?
The AI Bride of Frankenstein.
Shouldn’t it be easy with today’s computing power to simply search all content first for a match to known sources?
Wouldn’t necessarily tell you if that known source is AI. So now we have to go through everything by hand anyway.
Of course it can, if it’s from 1859 the chances of it being AI are … I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
And how do you know the source for your “hit” isn’t lying? You are not describing a trivially easy problem at all.
It seems trivially easier than whatever the hell AI is.
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
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)
Why are people so quick to place their faith in machines?
Ummmm. Thats not how this works . .
It’s not proven but some folks think she wasn’t ahead of her time and stole her story. I wouldn’t believe it myself but it’s sort of hard when she was hanging around “Castle Frankenstein” that was rumored to have a grave robbing scientist that lived there who did experiments to bring creatures back to life…
From a bot: The breakdown of the claims behind this theory includes:The “Mad Scientist” of Castle Frankenstein: Johann Conrad Dippel, an alchemist and physician, was born at Burg Frankenstein (near Darmstadt, Germany) in 1673. Local legends—largely popularized long after Shelley’s time—claimed he practiced grave robbing, boiled bones to create an “elixir of life” (known as Dippel’s Oil), and attempted to transfer souls between corpses.
The Travel Connection: In 1814, Mary Shelley, her step-sister Claire Clairmont, and Percy Bysshe Shelley traveled down the Rhine River. They stopped in Gernsheim, Germany, which is roughly 10 miles away from Castle Frankenstein. This proximity led some pop-historians to theorize that she visited the castle or heard local tales of Dippel from boat captains along the river.
The Lack of Documentation: Mary Shelley’s detailed journals and letters from that 1814 trip make no mention of Castle Frankenstein, Dippel, or local ghost stories. When the travelers ran low on money, they rushed back to England, leaving very little time for unauthorized detours.
Where the Name Came From: Shelley famously stated that the core concept of the novel came to her during a waking dream at Lord Byron’s house in Switzerland during the “Year Without a Summer” (1816), after a late-night ghost-story challenge. As for the name “Frankenstein,” it is a real German surname meaning “stone of the Franks”. Linguistic and literary historians note that it was a striking, gothic-sounding word she likely encountered or naturally synthesized, without needing a specific real-world blueprint. Ultimately, while the parallels between Dippel’s legends and Victor Frankenstein’s fictional misadventures make for a fascinating modern urban legend,
Are you some sort of ai apologist
nah, the pic just reminded me about this fun fact about shelley.
