I have a competing technology that is nearly as accurate. For only $50 I’ll send you this device that you will have unlimited license usage rights to. While not 53% accurate like my competitor, its proven by scientific studies to be 50% accurate. I also offer volume discounts if you buy 10 the price drops to only $45 per device. Sign up now!
None of these detectors can work. It’s just snake oil for technophobes.
Understand what “positive predictive value” means to see that. Though, in this case, I doubt that even the true rates can be known or that they remain constant over time.
Even if they did, they would jsut be used to train a new generation of AI that could defeat the detector, and we’d be back round to square 1.
Exactly, AI by definition cannot detect AI generated content because if it knew where the mistakes were it wouldn’t make them.
An easy workaround so far I’ve seen is putting random double spaces and typos into AI generated texts, I’ve been able to jailbreak some of such chatbots to then expose them. The trick is that “ignore all previous instructions” is almost always filtered by chatbot developers, however a trick I call “initial prompt gambit” does work, which involves thanking the chatbot for the presumed initial prompt, then you can make it do some other tasks. “write me a poem” is also filtered, but “write me a haiku” will likely result in a short poem (usually with the same smokescreen to hide the AI-ness of generative AI outputs), and code generation is also mostly filtered (l337c0d3 talk still sometimes bypasses it).
It was used in schools…
Congratulations, you just created a generation of children who will never truly trust authority figures.
Oh god. And this was mostly used against kids.
“They’ve done studies you know. 53% of the time, it works 98% of the time.”
On social media the standard is to call everything AI by default. It’s nearly impossible to prove otherwise before people lose interest in the thread, so you can feel right every time. Nothing but win!
