[Grimblewald]

Alternatively, no one sounds like an llm, an llm sounds like someone, typically those close to the median of the training corpus. If AI were genuinly capable of novelty, it would be a big deal, tech bros having enough work ethic to design new detectable prose for an llm is a mssive reach and has no real evidence supporting it, else why do tech bros only tackle the easier issues? Things we have massive well labelled corpi for? Why is it never dishwashing and folding laundry?

I put to you, if you see a trope in AI writing it's because that trope appeared in the training corpus. Therefore, sure, being predjudice against it lets you catch some AI, but you'll also flag human outout. I think that may not be worth it in the end.

[mrob]

Show me a single substantial (5000+ words) piece of writing from before the release of GPT-3 that triggers Pangram with high confidence.

[Grimblewald]

Burden of proof that ai tools aren't dogshit isn't really on me, so pipe down and use a more reasonable register you pissant. This site, even this thread is filled with evidence. You're in no position to demand anything, especially not something apparently demanded in bad faith. A request for info I'd be happy to meet, but not this.

There are many cases out there of people proving that it does happen. I have personal text not published that do trigger all detectors between 70-100% AI depending on the tool. I wont be sharing these, as "providers" of these "tools" would simply add it to training data and continue to merrily overfit.

Bottom line, transformers regress to the mean like many other models, if you as a person produce output aligned with mean of corpus, you'll trigger detection. More importantly, evading detectors is trivial. Find a corpus of text from an author, get an llm to write a note on style, parlance, habits in writing etc. and then use that voice file to drive outputs from an llm. If the source text didnt register as AI, the new ai output also reliably avoids detection.

So my problem is, detection doesnt work, false positives are fact, so these tools at best offer harm.

A bigger problem¸ undermining your request for proof beyond that which many before me, and including me, burned in an effort to make folks see reason, is that even if i handed you proof on a silver platter you wouldnt understand it. If you could, you'd already understand, because the problem and the math are quite simple. Every example text i've offered in the past now registers 100% human, but many I kept to myself continue to show the same problem, and that never changed. So why would I waste my few remaining tools for sanity checking, when all i can expect from that endevour is losing a tool and shifting nothing in the conversation? No, best I keep that to myself for now.