The problem with such things is that you would need 100% accuracy in most cases for it to be useful. For example many schools and universities fear that students use ChatGPT for homework. If such a plagiarism checker has false positive results in just a small percentage of cases, the consequences for honest students would be too severe to actually act on the results of the check. But perfect accuracy can never be reached for text classification, so those tool will never be that useful despite being interesting to AI people.
Expect an escalating arms race between models attempting to disguise their output and tools attempting to detect generated content.
There may also be escalating social and perhaps legal penalties too.
What about false positives? Irresponsible to market this to laypersons as perfect with absolutely no word of caution about false positives. There's been some chatter on Reddit that some content writers were falsely accused of using ChatGPT and lost their clients.
The accuracy just isn’t there, which isn’t surprising. I’m feeding it Star Wars reviews from both ChatGPT and IMDb, and for sure the answers are correlated. The false negative rate is OK, although I’ve hit plenty of them. But man, it sure does think a lot of people were using ChatGPT to write reviews back in the 2000s.
Again, it’s definitely correlated, even strongly correlated, but that’s not good enough for plagiarism detection. You can’t go accusing students of academic dishonesty based on a tool that gets it wrong multiple times on a couple dozen samples.
How is this different from this research on gpt-2 detection model [1]? [1] https://github.com/openai/gpt-2-output-dataset/tree/master/d...
-- I copy and pasted GPT3 reply to - what are Jim Crow Laws? - said written by AI - then copy paste wikipeda first paragraph - said written by AI - then I wrote it myself - said written by AI - then I copy/paste 1 word over and over and over 100 or so times - it says "likely written by human but some by AI" then - highlights the whole text and notes - likely written by AI - hahhaa --
I wonder if there is a way to watermark generated text, not by adding extra spaces or using invisible characters but by using grammar. Example naive rule “every 13th word MUST be a proposition”. Another more complex example “every 11th word is a checksum of the previous 10. You encode a few bits in every word i.e noun=1 verb=2 article=3 etc”
I read an interesting tweet about how it would be possible to watermark GPT outputs. Essentially before each token is generated the previous token is used to seed an RNG. Using the RNG the possible next tokens are split into a whitelist and a blacklist and the model can only select words from the whitelist. Later on it's possible to "check" for the watermark by counting the whitelist tokens and doing statistical analysis.
Apparently they can preserve performance by not doing this for very low entropy tokens where there is only one token that is extremely likely.
Saw it here: https://twitter.com/tomgoldsteincs/status/161828766500640358...
I tried with a few texts that ChatGPT generated for me and it says it was entirely generated by a human. It's true, I fixed some things here and there, for cohesion basically, but I think it's almost impossible for these tools to get it right.
Here’s and alternate approach to detecting GPT that has an actual benchmarks and research paper available:
So, what prevents chatGPT to use detection tool and fine-tune its response accordingly?
I thought to make something similar but what scared me away was the idea that some educational institution could use it and decide a student was being dishonest due to a false positive. I wouldn't want to bear responsibility for something like that.
And secondly, this is a never-ending race. Even if it were to be able to detect ChatGPT content with 100% accuracy today, it would just be used to assist in training another model to defeat it.
ChatGPT and other AIs are theoretical machines built on human data.
Can an algorithm write an article about the 2008 financial crisis? Of course! it has read God knows how many Wikipedia articles, books and online discussions about it. But everything the AI knows is because some humans put in the work and documented everything.
If we don't know something, be it a historical fact or a scientific model, we have the ability to go out in the real world and record the data. Can ChatGPT fly to Yemen and interview refugees? Can ChatGPT tear apart the circuitry of a home appliance, reverse engineer it and write a blog post about it? Can ChatGPT go to a lab and make chemical experiments to create new compounds?
No, it can only regurgitate what it knows and even what it doesn't know.
ChatGPT will absolutely steal the job of all the "journalists" that just regurgitate what others have already written. Original research and field reporting will be left to the real journalists for God knows how many decades. If your job consists of actually making new things or collecting real-world data then I think it will be safe for the decades to come.
What I think would be interesting is to add the assignment / questions as input for the tool to consider in its evaluation. That way your tool could plug these into ChatGPT, ask it to reword it several ways (mimicking the likely path a plagiarizer might take to actually generate content) and do some diff/comparison as part of the evaluation.
Even so, I agree with most of the comments that it would be exceeding difficult to truly identify this stuff since you can ask ChatGPT to reword things in very specific ways or just edit it yourself (aside from blatant false positives)
I just fed it an email I'd personally written.
The start and end were apparently written by AI.
What does this mean? Is this proof we're in a simulation and I'm actually a mouth piece for an AI that's reached the singularity?
I tried this on my recent AI satire article. While ChatGPT detected my story as AI (because I wrote it like a machine), GPTZero gladly says it's human written.
ChatGPT's response: https://imgur.com/a/u7iBBaX
GPTZero's response: https://imgur.com/a/89icz2X
To be clear, my story was ChatGPT-assisted. But I wonder why ChatGPT couldn't detect it correctly like GPTZero?
I can tell you that detecting AI plagiarism can be a challenging task, as AI models like ChatGPT are able to generate text that is similar to existing text. It is important to note that not all text generated by AI models is considered plagiarism, as it may be used in a legal, educational or research context. The best way to evaluate the accuracy of a plagiarism detection website would be to test it using a variety of inputs, and compare its results to those of other plagiarism detection tools.
Sorry.
I copied a text from wikipedia - it classified it as human written, i then asked gpt to rewrite it and it was still classified as a human..
Would be interesting how much they actually catch.
This only calculates perplexity and burstiness. I don't think that's going to work very well. It would be much better to try and detect whether the distribution from which a piece of text was drawn is closer to that of a human, or that of a large language model.
But how would one go about detecting something like that? Well, one would need a model of human language trained to approximate the distribution of tokens in a large corpus of natural language... text...
Oh wait.
Interesting. It only seems to work in English. English texts that it successfully detects as AI generated are classified as human generated if you ask ChatGPT to translate them into a different language (or make the initial prompt in a different language). Perhaps they want to clarify this limitation, either through an FAQ or by stating that it doesn't support it when other languages are supplied in the prompt.
Does this use ML to determine whether or not ML is used? I wonder if it might be useful to try ChatGPT for detection, I’ve heard it’s pretty good…
I tried with a piece of text that was generated with ChatGPT and it said written by a human. I guess this still needs some improvement.
A nice approach - estimates the randomness in text. I tried with various cases - blog posts, wikipedia, scientific docs, and with a few examples from chat, and it figured it out accurately.
Respect. Even though I disagree with a need for such tools - it doesn’t matter if content was written by a human or by a machine. What matters is whether it’s easy to read and worthwhile.
We ought to require OpenAI to run something like this: a “Hey ChatGPT, this you?” endpoint that replies Yes/No/similarity score, and a creation timestamp, when you hit it with some text.
As regulations go, this one’s not too burdensome: expensive, but pretty cheap compared to training and running a large language model in the first place.
Useless. Any text written by chatGPT gets marked as human, as long as you edit it a bit here and there. Other text refined through a couple of chiseling prompts are a complete miss.
I tried it on a section of an article I wrote with the help of ChatGPT. It marked some of my sentences as generated by AI while it didn't mark the ones coming from ChatGPT.
It would seem to be checking sentence structure, and if "too complex" -- embedded clauses and such -- it follows a hard-wired rule to report AI.
Consider trying out GPTKit https://gptkit.ai it has higher accuracy than GPTZero.
I assume this is English only, as none of other languages with which I tried chatGPT found even one single word AI produced.
ChatGPT can generate infinite combinations of words in thousands of different styles. Accurate detection will never work.
Someone make a no-ChatGPT HN. submission filter (show every submission but ChatGPT-related ones).
worked about 20% of the time/content for me. It does not seem to perform very well in languages other than english. However there is a huge market potential for whoever figure this out. (Although I believe this will be nearly impossible)
Fed a blog I know to be ChatGPT-written. It only detected 1/3 of the sentences.
Is there a chatgpt and human text dataset similar to gpt2 released by openAI?
This is detecting my own written work as ai.
I'm not sure this is working.
teachers pet final boss hahaha
[dead]
This is useless. I have tried it with 4 different samples and it made mistakes with each.
- it thinks AI wrote parts of my handwritten texts
- King James Genesis 29 is appearantely fully AI written
- a wall of text copied straight from chatgpt? Only partially AI written.
- second chapter of Harry Potter? AI written parts
In fact I could not find a sample yet which was not AI written at least partially according to this.