Technology

59118 readers

6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

335

OpenAI has a 99.9% accurate ChatGPT AI text detector, but won't release it. (the-decoder.com)

submitted 3 months ago by ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

The detector provides an assessment of how likely it is that all or part of the document was written by ChatGPT. Given a sufficient amount of text, the method is said to be 99.9 percent effective.

That means given 100 pieces of text and asked if they are made by ChatGPT or not, it gets maybe one of them wrong. Allegedly, that is, and with the caveat of "sufficient amount of text", whatever that means.

[–] mark3748@sh.itjust.works 23 points 3 months ago

It’s actually 1 in 1000, 99.0% would be 1/100.

[–] oktoberpaard@feddit.nl 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A false positive is when it incorrectly determines that a human written text is written by AI. While a detection rate of 99.9% sounds impressive, it’s not very reliable if it comes with a false positive rate of 20%.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I know what a false positive is, and it's not a thing when talking about effectiveness, they claim it gets it right 99.9% of the time.

[–] oktoberpaard@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago

Right, I see what you mean now. I misread your comment as explaining something that was already clear.