this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
335 points (90.4% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
3571 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drmoose 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] drmoose 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] drmoose 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] drmoose 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months 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.