this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
264 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

59174 readers
1229 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
264
OpenAI has built a text watermarking method to detect chatgpt written content (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 2 months ago by PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
69 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Am I missing something? The article seems to suggest it works via hidden text characters. Has OpenAI never heard of pasting text into a utf8 notepad before?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think it exists and works but that its simply not in their best interest to have people use it and be found out that they used chatgpt, for OpenAI's business/profit potential. I have nothing to back it up but have just lost all faith in OpenAI.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Im willing to believe it exists, but not that its any good. 99% is a crazy accuracy claim.

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I van totally believe that it detects AI generated content 99% of the time, that’s trivial. What I really wanna know is the false positive rate. If I write a program that flags everything, it’d have a 100% hit rate. It’d also however have a crazy high false positive rate.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yup, noticable that they use the phrase "99.9% effective". Effective doesnt have a defined meaning in this contect, unlike accuracy, sensitivity or specificity, so that smells of missleading PR speak to me.

[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Especially if the claim that it's undetectable by humans.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They sell the cheating tool and the detection software

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

It's really sweet to play the arms race with oneself.