I’d expect false positives to be low. Bad AI has a distinctive style and is easy to pick up on. Just like bad toupees are easily recognized. The false negative rate would be far more interesting.
replyThe false negative rate would be interesting but is irrelevant in this context. I was replying to a comment claiming that most people take issue with the ethics of GenAI rather than the quality and that people have a high false positive rate. I raise myself and my experience with people I know as a counter example.
replyThere might be AI generated things in my every day life that I do not recognize as AI, but that's not what's being discussed.
“I can tell because I judge that my judgement is correct.”
replyHow did you check? What was your oracle when you thought something was AI and when you did not?
replyI mean, this situation is a textbook case of ground for a lot of common fallacies, starting with confirmation bias. We need to remember that our brain wants to be tricked. If you think you are special, you are not. You’re just not aware of it and even more prone to falling into these traps.
How do you know that?
replyI trust Pangram's stats to be a good baseline.
replyHey Claude, re word this until it passes pangram as not AI written.
replyAs I explained in another comment the false negative rate is irrelevant in this context.
reply