Text is simply not information dense enough to be able to decode some arbitrary signal of provenance from it. Sure you might be able to detect today's tells (particular sentence structures preferred by Claude, phrases, etc) to get you some arbitrary chance percentage it was machine generated, but it's a bad fiction to perpetuate that any of this is anything more than tarot card reading.
Images, absolutely, there are tell-tale artifacts from today's generators that simply aren't emitted by "natural" paths to create them, and you can "detect AI" with high confidence (for now). Words, no, the signal is far too sparse and we are well into undetectable sophistication with today's models, let alone tomorrow's.
i think one thing overlooked by this perspective is that many of a detectors adversaries are not that sophisticated. so despite this i think it is a useful thing to try to do. particularly when people are trying to do fraud which will often having to use abliterated models and generally trying to be as economical in their efforts
> but it's a bad fiction to perpetuate that any of this is anything more than tarot card reading.
Hard disagree. LLMs (especially base ones, that only received pre-training) can produce output that is undistinguishable from human writing (because that's what they were trained to do).
But commercial chat models are specifically tuned in a way that maximizes user engagement.
It's that specific tuning that is very easy to spot when reading AI slop, and that's not surprising that it's easy to spot automatically either.
And I don't think that's going to change anytime soon, unless their incentives change.
(We can say exactly the same thing about man-made stuff optimized for a specific purpose, like stock photography, clickbait titles or industrial food: they aren't stereotypical because their creator lacks the skill to make them otherwise, they are like that because that's what works best).
They're also designed to not offend anybody, so their output tends to be very bland even compared to the most milquetoast of human beings. I was only surprised once when ChatGPT responded with an enthusiastic "hell yes" seemingly organically, but 99.9% of the time these AI services clearly are instructed and trained to provide flavorless word vomit. I don't think there's a technical reason why an LLM couldn't produce totally convincing output, but internet grifters don't need to go through that trouble. It's like how most phone, email, and social media scams come off as completely transparent to most of us, but that's the whole point; we're not the target audience of the scams. Readers looking for substance, nuance, and real opinions aren't going to notice if something with written by an LLM – unless there are some cliche punctuation tells.
It does mean that this will have a drift problem if it's just trained on the idiosyncrasies of model fine tuning. That's fine! But it is something to be aware of.
The classifier does not seem so big, I wonder if something like it for English could be used in a browser extension to run against every single paragraph being displayed ?
If the internet is going to drown in LLM text it would be nice to have tools to detect that automatically just like we have adblockers today to avoid wasting time on ads.
The article mentions that AI texts are often caught by multiple models, so hopefully text from newer LLMs could still be caught without updating the model?
I think the fundamental problem is that training current SOTA AI models is very expensive. If a simple "classical" model can detect them, presumably at much lower algorithmic cost, then why wouldn't the model trainers use these same tools to feed back into their models to improve them at low cost to make them better? It's an arms race. Any cheap pattern can and presumably will be used to retrain if it becomes and effective way to catch AI.
The problems are simply too great if an LLM detector has any false positives at all. Imagine how soul-crushing writing an entire dissertation by hand and having it rejected because some “good enough” LLM detector decides you write too much like an AI.
I had done the same for classifying and generating bookmarks of thousands of datasheets, along with a very naive yolo-based classificator (to detect pages made out of diagrams and pictures mostly).
Done with GLM-OCR, I had to watch text sloooowly crawl out of the llm and still have to live with hallucinations and the model not following the schema
Images, absolutely, there are tell-tale artifacts from today's generators that simply aren't emitted by "natural" paths to create them, and you can "detect AI" with high confidence (for now). Words, no, the signal is far too sparse and we are well into undetectable sophistication with today's models, let alone tomorrow's.
Hard disagree. LLMs (especially base ones, that only received pre-training) can produce output that is undistinguishable from human writing (because that's what they were trained to do).
But commercial chat models are specifically tuned in a way that maximizes user engagement. It's that specific tuning that is very easy to spot when reading AI slop, and that's not surprising that it's easy to spot automatically either. And I don't think that's going to change anytime soon, unless their incentives change.
(We can say exactly the same thing about man-made stuff optimized for a specific purpose, like stock photography, clickbait titles or industrial food: they aren't stereotypical because their creator lacks the skill to make them otherwise, they are like that because that's what works best).
If the internet is going to drown in LLM text it would be nice to have tools to detect that automatically just like we have adblockers today to avoid wasting time on ads.
(the article was a good read, thanks!)
Done with GLM-OCR, I had to watch text sloooowly crawl out of the llm and still have to live with hallucinations and the model not following the schema
Tomorrow, the LLMs will be training the humans thought patterns that will directly start skewing their natural writing.
Generation alpha is going to have a lot of trouble if we keep perpetuating the myth that you can really interpret text in an ongoing fashion.