6 ms·
Of course you can ask an LLM if the content is AI-generated. It's easily at least 50% accurate too.
by g3f32r 9mo ago
Of course you can ask an LLM if the content is AI-generated. It's easily at least 50% accurate too.
- li2uR3ce 9mo agoGiven the context of what I personally think about the content, the AI is much more accurate than that. (Is it any wonder why people fall in love with bots that always agree with them?)
- thot_experiment 8mo agoYou know, I wouldn't be surprised if the AI was less than 50% accurate. I'm not claiming that in general, but I'm also certain it would be possible to construct a dataset such that the AI would do far worse than a coin flip.
- stavros 8mo agoYou know that it's not possible to do worse than a coin flip, right? If you're getting it 100% wrong, I'll just do the opposite of what you say, and have a 100% correct predictor.
- waldrews 8mo agoThe threshold isn't 50% because the distribution of human and AI written cases isn't naturally 50-50. So a coin flip will underperform always guessing the more frequent class. Where it gets interesting is if the base is unknown or variable over time or between application domains. Like, since AI written text is being generated faster than the human kind, soon guessing AI every time will be 99% accurate. That doesn't mean such a detector is useful.
- stavros 8mo agoWhen we say "coin flip" in these situations we mean "chance", ie the prior distribution. Otherwise a predictor of the winning lottery numbers that's "no better than a coin flip" would mean it wins the jackpot half the time.
- waldrews 8mo agoYup! My point is that the 'coin flip baseline' model that's as good as chance isn't actually trivial to create, for an unbalanced and time varying underlying distribution.
- thot_experiment 8mo agoOnly if you have that data available to you, the brain to analyze it and the freedom to chose.