[hannasanarion]

No, read the paper. They're going to pass 10% of students who cheated. The 90% figure is the false negative rate, how many AI essays it says are human.

The false positive rate is 0. The tool *never* says human writing is AI.

[bsoles]

> The false positive rate is 0. The tool never says human writing is AI.

That cannot be true as it would be easy for a human to write in the style of AI, if they choose to. Whoever is making that claim is lying, because money...

[hannasanarion]

Read the paper dude. It's not an advertisement, it's an investigation. They performed an experiment including 29 human written papers. One of them got a score of 11% likely to be AI, the rest got a score of 0% likely to be AI. The tool never labeled any human writing as AI with high confidence.

> That cannot be true as it would be easy for a human to write in the style of AI, if they choose to.

Is that the nightmare scenario that everybody in this thread is freaking out about?

Students who go to great effort to deliberately try to make it look like they are cheating, they're the ones you're afraid of being falsely accused of cheating?

We're on our way to dystopia because people who go out of their way to look suspicious on purpose, arouse suspicion?

[bsoles]

The reliability of all AI tools with potentially severe consequences for people needs to be tested using adversarial patterns. This is nothing new, yet the mentioned article fails to do that. They test the happy paths and find the results to be satisfactory for themselves.

It is very common in academic investigations to achieve results with more than 95% accuracy, let alone 90%, when in the real world the same AI tools fail miserably.

So, yes, this is the nightmare scenario that I am afraid of where a simplistic "investigation" will be used to justify the use of unproven AI tools with real life consequences to people.