5 ms·

Have a look here [1] and here [2] - I think they are good resources, but fallible in the long run. I think yes, I do, often confirmed by communication with peop

by etherus 6mo ago

Have a look here [1] and here [2] - I think they are good resources, but fallible in the long run. I think yes, I do, often confirmed by communication with people I know (i.e. i suspect they have used AI to make something -> I ask). This falls victim to confirmation bias, though. I suspect a nontrivial amount of writing I read is AI generated without me realising, and I'm wary also of falsely flagging AI-generated content that is actually from humans. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAI_or_not_quiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAI_or_not_quiz [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASigns_of_AI_writing#Signs_of_human_writing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASigns_of_AI_writin...

H8crilA 6mo ago
Okay, but the answers in [1] look something like: AI generated. Some of the clues include: - Most obviously, a failed ISBN checksum - Other source-to-text integrity issues; for example, the WWF source says very little about Malaysia specifically, only mentions Sunda tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica), and does not mention tapirs at all - Very short yet consistent paragraph length - Generic "see also" links, one of which is redlinked This is not the sort of thing that I pay attention to unless I'm doing detailed research. And even then I'd probably have a bot check these for me, ironically, since it's such a mechanical job. At the very least detecting AI like this requires conscious effort.
- slopinthebag 6mo ago
  Ok, but like, what about [2]? I can easily tell AI writing. I'm sure plenty goes under the radar, but I can still catch a lot.
OrangePilled 6mo ago
I think the second resource that you linked to is valuable. The first is useless unless you're a Wikipedia editor, the significance of verifying citations not withstanding. The gap between LLM-generated writing and the composite style of the average Wikipedia page is more narrow than most people may believe.

by etherus 6mo ago

H8crilA 6mo ago

Okay, but the answers in [1] look something like: AI generated. Some of the clues include: - Most obviously, a failed ISBN checksum - Other source-to-text integrity issues; for example, the WWF source says very little about Malaysia specifically, only mentions Sunda tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica), and does not mention tapirs at all - Very short yet consistent paragraph length - Generic "see also" links, one of which is redlinked This is not the sort of thing that I pay attention to unless I'm doing detailed research. And even then I'd probably have a bot check these for me, ironically, since it's such a mechanical job. At the very least detecting AI like this requires conscious effort.

slopinthebag 6mo ago
Ok, but like, what about [2]? I can easily tell AI writing. I'm sure plenty goes under the radar, but I can still catch a lot.

OrangePilled 6mo ago

I think the second resource that you linked to is valuable. The first is useless unless you're a Wikipedia editor, the significance of verifying citations not withstanding. The gap between LLM-generated writing and the composite style of the average Wikipedia page is more narrow than most people may believe.