[siglesias]

I'd challenge this assumption. ChatGPT is supposed to convey information and answer questions in a manner that is intelligible to humans. It doesn't mean it should write indistinguishably from humans. It has a certain manner of prose that (to me) is distinctive and, for lack of a better descriptor, silkier, more anodyne, than most human writing. It should only attempt a distinct style if prompted to.

[constantcrying]

ChatGPT is explicitly trained on human writing it's training goal is explicitly to emulate human writing.

>It should only attempt a distinct style if prompted to.

There is no such thing as an indistinct style. Any particular style it could have would be made distinct by it being the style ChatGPT chooses to answer in.

The answers that ChatGPT gives are usually written in a style combining somewhat dry academic prose and the type of writing you might find in a Public Relations statement. ChatGPT sounds very confident in the responses it generates to the queries of users, even if the actual content of the information is quite doubtful. With some attention to detail I believe that it is quite possible for humans to emulate that style, further I believe that the style was designed by the creators of ChatGPT to make the output of the machine learning algorithm seem more trustworthy.

[JustBreath]

That's true, you could even purposely inject fingerprinting into its writing style and it could still accomplish the goal of conveying information to people.

[insanitybit]

All I would have to do is run the same tool over the text, see it gets flagged, and then modify the text until it no longer gets flagged. That's assuming I can't just prompt inject my way out of the scenario.

[JustBreath]

That's true of virtually any detection tool, no?

"All I have to do is modify my virus until the anti-virus doesn't detect it."

[littlestymaar]

But then that wouldn't be “detecting AI”, but merely recognizing an intentionally added fingerprint, which sounds far less attractive…