Why is everything labeled as AI now????? I can't even post a story anymore.

[PennyThompson]

I looked this up.

You could have done that earlier, I think, then you wouldn't have had to write like five Sephiroth monologues

 

[MetaBob]

You could have done that earlier, I think, then you wouldn't have had to write like five Sephiroth monologues

Or maybe you didn't read what I wrote.

Are you saying that Lit uses AI detection based on this (voluntary) "fingerprinting" technology? If so, please provide evidence. It would be the first definitive evidence that anyone has presented here.

As I said, I wouldn't blame them if they did, because it'll weed out a lot of low hanging fruit. But it won't solve the problem by itself.

 

[MetaBob]

Look, peeps, the goal of ANY AI detection capability is to ... detect AI.

ChatGPT claims 99% accuracy. Any custom alternative must compete with that or what I assume is similar capabilities from several other AI stacks. If it can, then someone needs to maintain that custom solution. That is a "Build or Buy" question: every potential customer must make that choice based on their needs and costs.

Bottom line, ANY solution has to be able to compete with what outfits like OpenAI provide, and anything that can will produce similar results. NOT significantly better results, because it's hard to exceed 99% by enough to be significant. Assuming that ChatGPT's stated 99% accuracy result is accurate, of course.

Measure what you can, apply what those measurements reveal, then make judgements. Or just snipe.

Edit: Shutting up now. Y'all be you, though I did say that I would check back in if EM had more to say. But that won't last long.

 

[metropolinational]

Assuming that ChatGPT's stated 99% accuracy result is accurate, of course.

I think that's a very old claim? My understanding is that they retired the product because it was totally unreliable in the real world.

I said this a long time ago in the thread. All the AI detectors claim to be reliable, but against raw AI generated text. That's useless, because even five minutes of effort into improving the text will dramatically reduce the detectors accuracy. If you go through an actual workflow (edit, put the worst pieces through a humanizer, edit again), then the detection rate is the same as pure chance.

Nobody should be relying on AI detection anymore. Its a myth being marketed to suckers.

 

[Catcher78]

I've not had that happen to me. Not once. It helps when one's genre of choice for writing is humor. AI is exceedingly poor at attempting to write humor. Laughably (ironic term, that) poor. I do appreciate your subtle self-congratulatory tone when bemoaning the cloud of suspicion you have been toiling under. - "genuine [as opposed to ???] writers are being punished simply for having a clean style, strong grammar, or consistent structure" - really? You DO realize that AI has never, once, had a thought or an idea or exhibited anything that is actual intelligence. Still, the practice of self-congratulating gives me the "ick".

Do you know how AI actually processes the written word? It's nothing like you might imagine. I'm not asking as a challenge but it's something I've followed as my PhD studies coincided with the explosion of neural networks, circa 1998ish. I've not read any of your stuff (not saying as an insult, just factually) but are you sure your "clean" is not another's "sterile" and your "consistent" is not another's "formulaic"? Not stating, rather, asking.

It's happened to me once and it was utter bullshit

 

[RocketGrunt]

I've watched ChatGPT attempt to play chess, and I would be extremely skeptical of anything it claimed to be able to do 99% accurately.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think that further discussion about this topic is largely pointless. There's no will in the AH to rationally discuss this topic and to critically approach this issue.

We all know that whatever we discuss here has zero impact on the way Lit behaves, so there are really no stakes whatsoever. But we still zealously take sides and act as if anything we say here matters rather than just discussing these things in good faith. I've seen absurdity supported in many of these threads merely due to this side-taking in the perpetual Lit-fan vs Lit-critic divide. Bias and emotional approach are all over these threads. And it's all for nothing.

There are no stakes, there are no consequences to rationally discussing all of these things here. But god forbid criticizing is allowed, even if it means distrusting new people and outright dismissing their claims. This is not how rational adults behave.