• Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    ·
    5 months ago

    Given a sufficient amount of text, the method is said to be 99.9 percent effective.

    If that’s really the case, they should release some benchmarks. I am skeptical. Promising the world is a key component of their “business model”.

  • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    157
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    “A 99.9% accurate ChatGPT AI text detector? At this time of year! At this time of day! In this part of the country! Localized entirely within your company?!?”

    “Yes”

    "May I see it?“

    “No”

  • DrCataclysm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    The detection rate is worthless, an algorithm that says anything is Chatgpt would have a detection rate of 100%. What would be more interesting than that is the false positive rate but they never talk about that.

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The detector provides an assessment of how likely it is that all or part of the document was written by ChatGPT. Given a sufficient amount of text, the method is said to be 99.9 percent effective.

      That means given 100 pieces of text and asked if they are made by ChatGPT or not, it gets maybe one of them wrong. Allegedly, that is, and with the caveat of “sufficient amount of text”, whatever that means.

      • mark3748
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s actually 1 in 1000, 99.0% would be 1/100.

      • oktoberpaard@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        A false positive is when it incorrectly determines that a human written text is written by AI. While a detection rate of 99.9% sounds impressive, it’s not very reliable if it comes with a false positive rate of 20%.

  • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    it’s only 99.9% accurate because they haven’t released it. As soon as they do, it will quickly fall to 50% as usual. Because this type of thing is exactly what’s needed to develop tech to defeat itself.

  • Cyteseer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    5 months ago

    If they aren’t willing to release it, then the situation is no different from them not having one at all. All these claims openai makes about having whatever system but hiding it, is just tobtry and increase hype to grab more investor money.

  • Naich@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    5 months ago

    Total coincidence that this “news” appears about a day after several articles saying the AI bubble is starting to burst.

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      5 months ago

      It is nut. Who is paying for all these articles and why are they hell bent on convincing everyone that AI is to the left like immigrants are to Republicans

      • Saledovil
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Language models in the end, are just statistics. And to make statistics more accurate, you need more data. Exponentially more data. At the same time, the marginal utility of precision decays exponentially. Exponentially increasing marginal costs are met with exponentially decaying marginal utility.

      • doodledup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Why does everything have to be about the USA these days? I’m tired of this joke of a wannabe democracy. Don’t want to hear it. Nobody cares. Just stop and leave it to yourself.

  • x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    5 months ago

    ALL conversations are logged and can be used however they want.

    I’m almost certain this “detector” is a simple lookup in their database.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 months ago

    Probably because it doesn’t work. It’s not difficult for Open AI to see if any given conversation is one of their conversations. If I were them I would hash the results of each conversation and then store that hash in a database for quick searching.

    That’s useless for actual AI detection

  • nomad@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The detector is most likely a machine learning algorithm. That said, releasing that would allow for adversarial training. (An LLM that would not be detected). Therefore they can only offer maybe an api to use it but can not give unlimited access to the model.

  • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    They’re keeping everything anyway, so what’s preventing them from doing a DB look up to see if it (given a large enough passage of text) exist in their output history?

    • _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      I believe the actual detector is similar. They know what sentences are likely generated by chatgpt, since that’s literally in their model. They probably also have to some degree reverse engineered typical output from competing models.