• @conciselyverbose
    link
    English
    11 month ago

    but your low effort chatgpt copy/paste can be detected by OpenAI and nobody else

    Low effort copy pastes can absolutely be detected by people who aren’t openAI. The consistent “advanced” vocabulary and excessively formal grammar used correctly, but with clear and significant comprehension gaps are pretty damn consistent. You won’t get perfect reliability, but you’ll catch most of it and you won’t have a huge number of false positives.

    Real people don’t sound like GPT.

    • Dr. Moose
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 month ago

      No that’s in no way reliable way of catching anyone and I hope people smarten up and avoid this snake oil entirely. I’m borderline jealous how these “ai catchers” are making so much money from straight up snake oil.

      • @conciselyverbose
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        An algorithm can’t.

        Plenty of humans absolutely can. LLM writing is genuinely fucking terrible. It has the slightly stilted over formality of most non-native speakers, without the intelligence being fluent in a second language implies.

        Flawless grammar with a complete absence of any sign of intelligence is not something you get regularly from humans.

        • Dr. Moose
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 month ago

          The “can” is irrelevant here. Checking tool has to be reliable to be useful. What’s the use of having a checker that maybe detects something sometimes somewhat successfully?

          • @conciselyverbose
            link
            English
            11 month ago

            There’s a massive gap between “you can’t make a tool” and “you can’t identify it”.

            The problem with a tool is the exact same as the issue with LLMs to begin with. It does not resemble intelligence or comprehension in any way and cannot use it as an indicator.

            But the use of LLMs is absolutely identifiable to moderately intelligent humans, because LLM output has raw language skills wildly inconsistent with every other skill that is part of writing.

            • Dr. Moose
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 month ago

              What’s even point of your argument? That a detective can figure out who used AI? Yes detectives can figure out most stuff. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand my dude.

              • @conciselyverbose
                link
                English
                0
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                What are you talking about “detectives”?

                You said “nobody can identify LLM use” when any moderately intelligent human can identify LLM output pretty easily. It explodes off the page.

                • Dr. Moose
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Whatever dude not playing these stupid games. You know exactly what I meant. Go away 👋

                  • @conciselyverbose
                    link
                    English
                    11 month ago

                    It’s not a game.

                    Spreading the lie that LLMs are somehow indistinguishable from humans is incredibly harmful. It’s a big part of the reason the obscene waste of energy the entire “force chatbots into everything” space exists.