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
No we didn’t have birds back then, they hadn’t evolved yet.
RFC 1149
Ummmm. Thats not how this works . .
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”
No, you see, they are not the real faces!
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.
Objectively Frankenstein is the monster and a terrible father.
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
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.)
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.
Just a run-of-the-mill misogynist who can’t accept the idea that a woman wrote a piece of foundational genre fiction. See: all the unfounded claims that actually her husband wrote the story.
Relax. I do think she wrote the book herself but also took heavy inspiration from Dippel and never credited the story. This would be like someone hanging around Castle Dracula, writing a book called Dracula, and then claiming the story “came to me in a dream”.
Ahead of her time. But, then again, we all knew that.
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.
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.
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.
Btw the originality checker in my comment was also TurnItIn, so we’ve experienced the same thing.
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.
To be or not to be that is question.
-Hamletsnov
yeah, quotes and citations.
If the tool disregards quotations, a clever student would wrap entire papers in white-colored quotation marks!
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
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.The decline I’ve seen in my time on the internet is genuinely shocking
And are also less prone to use slang unless they go more deep in the culture
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.
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 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.
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.”
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.
Omg really? I had no idea! Next you’ll tell me potatoes are made of pot and toes.
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?
You literally cheating doing your job when you use janky AI detectors that have no way to know if the work is made by AI and just hallucinate some score.
The real AI detection like what is enforced by EU (secretly shifting biases towards certain words to appear more) would not have publically available validators cause otherwise anyone would be able to learn how to avoid getting caught. Plus, you’d have to validate for every LLM separately. Plus, open weight LLM would whoop your ass anyway.
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.
I think you replied to the wrong comment. Not sure wtf you’re rambling about.
“People who speak out against this are of no consequence” is not a rebuttal of the argument.
Look at those poor business and CS majors. Simultaneously illiterate and also very concerned about being accused of using AI to write.
A score of 149 in the GRE Verbal is 37th percentile.
You can achieve this score by leaving most of the test blank. The average American has a 6th grade reading level, btw. Google.
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.
deleted by creator
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…
I’ve used the detectors as well. At my university, accusing a student of cheating is a big deal and you want to go into it with as much documentation as you can muster. Even though I know it is AI, I’m going to be showing it to administrators without my area of expertise and experience. Administrators like reports and numbers, so I run whatever the assignment is through a checker, let it generate a score over 90%, and now I’ve got a number inside of my paperwork that will encourage my supervisor, or more often my supe’s supe, to take my accusation seriously. Before these AI checkers, I used “turn it in”, and before that I had LCS tools and diff command.
Luckily, previous drafts are automatically saved in most word processors, but you’re right. It’s a hideous new world.
This just comes off like you’re biased against any students who are into STEM fields and favor the ones in the liberal arts.
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.
