|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerobees
2 days ago
|
|
|
Skepticism against AI text detectors on HN is as old as time, and frequently comes from people with some vested interest in filling up the internet with slop when you look at their business ideas / projects / blogs. I've done systematic testing on human and LLM-generated text and I'm confident that the accuracy is higher than 95% (and that <5% is almost exclusively false negatives). You shouldn't crucify people based on this alone, but if it reads like AI, quacks like AI, and is detected as AI, it's probably AI. |
|
|
Since early 2023 or so, when the detectors were widely reported (off platform) as unreliable?
>and frequently comes from people with some vested interest in filling up the internet with slop
I'm sure sometimes.
At least once, has come from someone who recently philosophized about whether to call out the specifics of AI writing in the first place given the potential for aiding labs in their training missions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326913
>I've done systematic testing
You in the field?
>but if it reads like AI
Actually didn't to me, and I'd like to think my detector's no worse than the average for a commenter here... perhaps as we'd all :)