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.
Does it think it's AI because it was trained on it so it recognizes it as being part of AI now?
Intelligence is knowing that Frankenstein is the doctor. Wisdom is knowing that Shelley vibe coded the entire story.
Uses Ai to detect the use of Ai
To be fair, the monster was artificial and intelligent.
Shit like this happens if you train your AI on every god damn fucking text on earth.
It's a 100% match on what the model was trained on.
AI is like: "i made this"
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?"
Loved it when he met The AI Bride of Frankenstein.
All the villagers of the data center got their pitchforks.
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
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.
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.
Ahead of her time. But, then again, we all knew that.
false positives exist, and the real monster is that it also happens with "faces" of criminals.
Shouldn't it be easy with today's computing power to simply search all content first for a match to known sources?
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
Why are people so quick to place their faith in machines?
The monster was created by a vibe-surgeon.
confidently incorrect
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.
top 88 comments