• Hildegard (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    That’s how AI testers work and its why they don’t. Most forms of formal writing are predictable by design. If the AI can predict predictable formulaic writing, it doesn’t mean its AI, its probably just any form of professional writing other than fiction.

    Famous public domain works will always be considered AI by those tests, because of course your LLM knows the american national constitution. It was in the training data, so it can predict it with 100% accuracy, therefore your test wrongly calls it AI.

    Testing for AI writing that way does not work.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      The difference between what you describe and what I describe, is that a 100% match isn’t a hit. Nor is a 90/7/2/1. You need something with meaningful variability. Even within formal papers there are places where word choice is arbitrary as the article explains.

      Of course, you’re lacking the context of the full prompt and just feeding in the raw text. Again it gets way more reliable the more text you have.

      But it’s moot because the more text you have the more tells will sneak in and you probably don’t even need an AI checker. Those phrases that AI loves but humans use comparatively rarely. It’s not a tell — it’s the whole game!