• Alphane Moon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1632 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1572 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”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1092 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      2 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 month 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%.

        • JohnEdwa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 month ago

          I know what a false positive is, and it’s not a thing when talking about effectiveness, they claim it gets it right 99.9% of the time.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 month ago

            Right, I see what you mean now. I misread your comment as explaining something that was already clear.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    68
    edit-2
    1 month 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    672 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    532 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        122 months ago

        Lots of money in the AI hype game, as tech stocks are massively inflated from just this year alone.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 month 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        1 month 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.

    • StarDreamer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      181 month ago

      A routine that just returns “yes” will also detect all AI. It would just have an abnormally high false positive rate.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        My model has 100% recall and 50% precision, not bad eh?

        But - that model would not have 99.9% accuracy.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    401 month 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.

  • nomad
    link
    fedilink
    English
    352 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    262 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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 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.

  • AmbiguousProps
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 months ago

    There is no way it’s that accurate, which is why they don’t want to release it.