this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
53 points (92.1% liked)

Technology

58135 readers
4425 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
 

I keep seeing posts about this kind of thing getting people's hopes up, so let's address this myth.

What's an "AI detector"?

We're talking about these tools that advertise the ability to accurately detect things like deep-fake videos or text generated by LLMs (like ChatGPT), etc. We are NOT talking about voluntary watermarking that companies like OpenAI might choose to add in the future.

What does "effective" mean?

I mean something with high levels of accuracy, both highly sensitive (low false negatives) and highly specific (low false positives). High would probably be at least 95%, though this is ultimately subjective.

Why should the accuracy bar be so high? Isn't anything better than a coin flip good enough?

If you're going to definitively label something as "fake" or "real", you better be damn sure about it, because the consequences for being wrong with that label are even worse than having no label at all. You're either telling people that they should trust a fake that they might have been skeptical about otherwise, or you're slandering something real. In both cases you're spreading misinformation which is worse than if you had just said "I'm not sure".

Why can't a good AI detector be built?

To understand this part you need to understand a little bit about how these neural networks are created in the first place. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) are a strategy often employed to train models that generate content. These work by having two different neural networks, one that generates content similar to existing content, and one that detects the difference between generated content and the existing content. These networks learn in tandem, each time one network gets better the other one also gets better.

That this means is that building a content generator and a fake content detector are effectively two different sides of the same coin. Improvements to one can always be translated directly and in an automated way into improvements into the other one. This means that the generator will always improve until the detector is fooled about 50% of the time.

Note that not all of these models are always trained in exactly this way, but the point is that anything CAN be trained this way, so even if a GAN wasn't originally used, any kind of improved detection can always be directly translated into improved generation to beat that detection. This isn't just any ordinary "arms race", because the turn around time here is so fast there won't be any chance of being ahead of the curve... the generators will always win.

Why do these "AI detectors" keep getting advertised if they don't work?

  1. People are afraid of being saturated by fake content, and the media is taking advantage of that fear to sell snake oil
  2. Every generator network comes with its own free detector network that doesn't really work all that well (~50% accuracy) because it was used to create the generator originally, so these detectors are ubiquitous among AI labs. That means the people that own the detectors are the SAME PEOPLE that created the problem in the first place, and they want to make sure you come back to them for the solution as well.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] itsnotlupus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

There are stories after stories of students getting shafted by gullible teachers who took one of those AI detectors at face value and decided their students were cheating based solely on their output.

And somehow those teachers are not getting the message that they're relying on snake oil to harm their students. They certainly won't see this post, and there just isn't enough mainstream pushback explaining that AI detectors are entirely inappropriate tools to decide whether to punish a student.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] const_void@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I imagine 80% of student homework starts with a chatgtp first draft. Machine learning is now shaping human learning..

[–] KzadBhat@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And in the next iteration, 80% of the chatgtp created first drafts are based on previously chatgpt created drafts. And who knows how any percentages of lasts years Wikipedia edits are already based on chatgpt. It might be the best time to buy an encyclopedia on paper, ...

[–] Dewded@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't worry, the paperback was also made with ChatGPT

[–] KzadBhat@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

ChatGPT, all the way down, ...

[–] marciealana@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Detectors of any sort can only flag expected variations from expected norms. AIs' goals are to be undetectable with continuing improvements. Detectors help them do this by flagging failures. This is the same way antibiotic resistant bacteria evolve (well, it's similar).

[–] fievel@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Very interesting post, congrats...

The more I read and see about AI / deep learning and the more I feel anxious...

I'm anxious because we seen during the covid crisis how many people were easily convinced of fake news and complotist theories that were by no way realistic, now I imagine that with the power of a forged argumentation from chatgpt and deep fake from midjourney... How to convince people they are wrong then...

I'm also anxious about the changes that will occur in the job I love, software engineering... I don't want to spend the rest of my life fixing bug in code automatically generated by an AI. Or worse to loose my job because some manager think I can be replaced easily by a bot ...

[–] heimchen@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly, code generated by chatGPT has better comments than most other code.

[–] damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

In that they are present at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Good summary of the issues. I've been fairly disappointed with what a lot of people think the AI text generators are good for - replacement for search engines, magic oracle that can tell you any fact, something to write legal briefs. And the people who generate documents and then don't even proof read or fact checking them before using them for something important... Some uses are good, like basic code generation for programming tasks, but many are just silly.

The instances where some professor with zero clue about how AI text generation works or the issues you outline here has told a student "My AI detector said this was generated!" have been absurd, like one professor with obvious serious misunderstandings told a student "I asked ChatGPT if it wrote this and it said yes."

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The biggest issue with publicly available ML based text tools is that they're American centric. Detection of ChatGPT in the UK is simple - it creates texts using American spelling. And if you live outside of English speaking world, like most humans do, it's completely useless.

[–] jochem@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

ChatGPT speaks other languages. It's actually a really good translator.

I just asked it to describe an organization using UK English and it indeed used 'organisation' instead (didn't check for other words).

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Can it understand and create new compound words (in a language like German)? That's an issue I have with most spell checks and translators as well, it's forcing the language to be more like English

[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Erfinde ein Rezept für Mohrrübensaftdressing [carrot juice dressing].

Rezept für Mohrrübensaftdressing: […] Beginne damit, frischen Mohrrübensaft herzustellen

I’d say it works.

[–] jochem@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looks like it does: https://chat.openai.com/share/1b487711-c1be-468a-877b-98091449b55e

I asked it to translate 'meeting agreements' to Dutch and it came up with the word 'bijeenkomstafspraken', which is a valid but very uncommon Dutch word (I'm native Dutch and don't think I've seen it before). If I throw it into google with quotes around it, the first page is results with 'bijeenkomst afspraken', where 'afspraken' is used as the past tense of 'afspreken' (to agree) instead of as its noun (agreements).

It btw also suggested 'vergaderafspraken' as a translation, which is a way more common word.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's nice, thanks for checking. I thought ChatGPT only worked at the level of whole words but it seems it chops them up internally.

[–] jochem@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Correct, it's not just regurgitating words, it's predicting which token comes next. A token is sometimes a whole word, but for longer ones it's part of a word (and some other rules that define how tokenization works).

How it knows which token comes next is why the current generation of LLMs is so impressive. It seems to have learned the rules the underpin our languages, to the point that it seems to even understand the content. It doesn't just know the grammer rules (without anyone telling it, it just learned the patterns), it also knows which words belong to each other in which context.

It's your prompt + some preset other context (e.g. that it is an OpenAI LLM) that creates that context. So being able to predict a token correctly is one part, the other is having a good context. This is why prompt engineering quickly became a thing. This is also why supporting bigger contexts is another thing (but a larger context requires way more processing power, so there's a trade-off there).

It's btw not just the trained model + context that gives you the output of ChatGPT. I'm pretty sure there are layers before and after, possibly using other ML models, that filter content or make it more fit for processing. This is why you can't ask it how to make bombs, even though those recipes are in its training set and it very likely can create a recipe based on that.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I think Bing did a pretty good job at coming up with name suggestions for some Sims characters. Playing with a virtual doll house is in the more harmless end of the spectrum, but obviously people want to try LLMs with all sorts of tasks, where the stakes are much higher and consequences could be severe.

The more you use it, the more you’ll begin to understand how much you can or cannot trust an LLM. A sensible person would become more suspicious of the results, but people don’t always make sensible decisions.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BlazeMaster3000@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've had documents of my own and even by my professors come up as "May be written by A.I." which I know isn't true. I feel bad for the dude that talks completely like a robot and gets accused of plagiarism.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, an internet comment is a bit whatever, but if you're a student, a plagiarism accusation could get you expelled. That's life ruining.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

I get the feeling it's going to be an escalation of attack and defense as fake generators get better and stop making the kinds of errors that are detected by the detectors, so it's much like material security or encryption.

It will be a problem in places where fakes can be used for wrongdoing because then detectors can be used for overreach of justice. We see this today with detection dogs which have largely been replaced in US law enforcement with trick-pony dogs (much to the chagrin of legitimate dog trainers and detectives who want to actually detect things). Since a dog signal is commonly used to establish probable cause, and is accepted in county and federal courts as such, most dogs are just trained to signal whenever, giving the officer grounds to search (in what would otherwise be violation of the forth amendment to the Constitution of the United States). In the last decade, dogs have been tested sometimes to have a 90%+ false positive rate, so detection dogs have lost a lot of credibility.

We may see the same abuse and discredit cycle of fake-detection software, but not without a lot of false accusations and convictions, which are difficult to reverse.

[–] b000urns@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

who is downvoting this? lol. if you are paying for these sevices you are being grifted

[–] m0nka@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If ChatGPT somehow ends up being the death of social media, i guess it is a win-win for the human race.

[–] michael@lemmy.perthchat.org 1 points 1 year ago

It'll destroy the fediverse first, big social media companies will be able to hold out longer.

[–] people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There could be a regulation mandating all AI tools and services to encode a watermark into everything made by them, but of course, it will be hard to actually implement.

[–] Hildegarde@geddit.social 2 points 1 year ago

How could this comment be watermarked to prove it was written by an ai? How could anyone verify it?

[–] domage@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting, how would you enforce that for projects, located in a different country? For self-hosted projects? Open-source projects or modifications of them that would exclude the watermark methods?

[–] people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you enforce copyrights for projects, in different countries, against open-source projects or modifications? You effectively don't against small players, but you put enough laws to at least deter any large enough party from doing it too overtly. And for countries that are actually hardasses for IP laws like the US, you can make it scary enough for anyone to attempt commercial use of unmarked AI content (lest they get caught), just like you have made it with making commercial use of copied stuff from content not licensed to you.

[–] jungle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The difference is that copyright violations can be detected relatively easily.

load more comments
view more: next ›