upvote

points

by docheinestages3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby calebh2 hours ago|
next
[-]
The easiest way is to keep track of the text's edit history, keeping a block of edits over time and having them signed by a timestamp authority. The final edit history can then be inspected by some external authority, then signed if the edit history looks human. I have a blog post from 2023 on this topic: https://helbl.ing/Written-Proof-of-Work/

For Google Doc users, you can already inspect the edit history over time to verify that text is written by a human.

reply
upvoteby visarga2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That human might have used AI. You can never know. Hand fixed AI output, human just polished the corners? Light rewording of a full text written by hand, because the author is not confident in their writing? Actual human text, but after researching with AI?
reply
upvoteby theoreticalmal2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Exactly. Detecting AI writing is an arms race that can only end with detection coming in second place.
reply
upvoteby warkdarrior2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I am working on a browser extension to help with that. Basically it interposes on any text field and canvas and if user pastes a large amount of text (copied form example from a chat bot), the extension will "replay" that text at normal, human-editing pace, and introduce typos that are fixed through later edits.
reply
upvoteby bulder1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Any specific reason as to why you'd want to make that, outside of intentionally enabling fraud?
reply
upvoteby Wowfunhappy1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
…All I know is that sometimes I will read e.g. a HN submission, and it becomes pretty obvious partway through that the article was AI generated.

If I can do it, an algorithm should be able to do it. Maybe in the future the models will get so good that it is literally impossible to differentiate human vs computer authorship, but that’s obviously not the case today.

reply
upvoteby joebo1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I've noticed there seems to be a default style that is easier to detect. I've noticed it harder to detect when asking an LLM to use a different style (more conversational, avoid sounding like an AI, don't use emdashes, etc). I wonder if that's what you're picking up too - the instances where people make no effort to change the style of the output.
reply
upvoteby mr_mitm1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
How do you estimate your false negative rate?
reply
upvoteby Wowfunhappy12 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
No idea, I'm not convinced it matters that much? Like, if people are using AI and I legitimately can't tell at all (and I'm not their teacher or something)... okay, fair.
reply
upvoteby pishpash1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What's likely to happen though, is human idiomatic writing will degrade to AI level and the two will converge. Just like nowadays it is harder to tell if some (human) non-native English speaker wrote some English text online whereas 20 years ago it was very obvious.
reply
upvoteby thatjoeoverthr2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Sufficiently advanced AI use is probably fine. The slop everyone complains about has certain tells specifically due to some combination of the following:

- The author is conducting some kind of hustle.

- The author doesn't bother editing.

- The author lacks the taste and awareness enough to see it looks.

- The author thinks you, the reader, lack taste and awareness.

- The author is using it as a kind of smoke bomb to get rid of you.

In such cases, nothing is done about the LLM's distinctive "voice". It dominates the text and it's easy to detect. It stands as a signifier of the above, even if it's otherwise not intrinsically a problem to use AI.

reply
upvoteby HDThoreaun2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
There cant be a way / except of course if you pay / mind to my syllables
reply
upvoteby nullsanity2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
[dead]
reply