|
|
|
|
|
|
by gin_dev
34 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting approach. But I guess most of the people who uses AI now, have already a feeling, if some text is prepared by AI or not :) I would point here to another issue - I guess most of the newly created public texts over the internet are at least passed through AI, just to polish and simplify it. So AI-style itself might be not that bad, if there is some interesting and newly invented idea behind. So the bigger problem, from my point of view, is that it's hard to distinguish: if certain AI-generated text has a good idea behind, or it is just a AI-garbage out of top-10 search result from google to certain topic. That brings me an idea that it could be useful to have a metric like "newness" or "novelty" in addition to marking text as AI-generated. But seems like it is totally another direction :) |
|
|
To the second point, that's the idea behind the adjustable threshold. It is indeed hard to distinguish; the extension will miss some gen-AI writing and return false-positives on some human writing. The user gets to decide which side to err toward.
It will never be infallible because the writing won't have C2PA metadata attached to it the way media does. It's just a tool that is a whole lot better than nothing for people who don't want to waste their time reading something written by a robot, or hate the inhuman homogeneity of "AI style." Don't you ever find yourself thinking "nobody talks like this?"