[Etherlord87]

What can you do with 90%? Accuse people of plagiarism and ignore the fact you will hurt 10% of innocent people, while still allowing 10% of cheaters? Of course there's ambiguity in the "accuracy" term, but I assumed you can be inaccurate in both directions.

[jtbayly]

Actually, you're allowing a much higher percentage of cheaters if you read the paper. They optimized to avoid false accusations. It's only ~45-75% accurate at detecting AI writing. It's closer to 90% accurate at detecting human writing. Half the cheaters get through, and you still fail 10 percent of the people who didn't cheat.

[wasabi991011]

> It's closer to 90% accurate at detecting human writing.

I know that's what they wrote, but I heavily disagree. It got 28/30 (93%) correct, but out of the two it got "wrong":

- one was just straight up not rated because the file format was odd or something

- the other got rated as 11% AI-written, which imo is very low. I think teachers would consider this as "human-written", as when I was being evaluated with Turnitin that percentage of "plagiarism" detected would have simply been ignored.

[j45]

At this point the most basic users of could be easily picked off and that style and list will grow yearly.

[wasabi991011]

> Of course there's ambiguity in the "accuracy" term, but I assumed you can be inaccurate in both directions.

The linked article breaks it down. The measured false positive rate is essentially 0 in this small study.