this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
735 points (99.6% liked)

196

5948 readers
2091 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

LLMs are predictive models. They scraped as much text as possible to create a model that predicts the next word accurately. To generate text, the LLM assembles a sequence of likely next words.

That exact same sort of model can be turned around and asked, how closely did the actual next word match the predicted one? Good test for training the LLM. A better model will make more accurate predictions.

AI checkers are usually doing that test. Does the real text match what the AI predicted? It sounds like a test of the text, but it really isn't. In this case, yes. Of course an AI trained on Mary Shelly's Frankenstein can accurately predict the next word of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. It has the whole book memorized, if it were accurate to anthropomorphize computer code.

So the "checker" calls it AI generated. These checkers don't work.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 6 hours ago

Actually they're not doing that check as they don't have access to the models, they're running their own statistical transformer that asks "how closely does this match our database"?

[–] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 203 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

tools like these are used to reject CVs and grade school papers btw

no matter how much ai is trash do NOT use ai checkers, they do not work

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 hours ago

That sucks. I had a hunch that my above-average level in french, my native language, (not just according to me, but also... almost all of my French teachers throughout my entire education) might be tripping these...

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago

Yeah, LLM-based checkers will still have LLM-based problems, most notably being incapable of true analysis, which is the whole point of an AI checker. It's just the same text predictor shit.

Oh and also there's an arms race where generative AI has the advantage because eventually it will be capable of generating things entirely indistinguishable from what a human would make (though it will still be susceptible to the hallucinations and errors it's already famous for).

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 49 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (3 children)

Yep, they’re all trash and should not be relied upon.

I got anywhere from 35% to 70% AI generated results on a book I wrote in 2019, before AI was even released.

eta: it’s not about plagiarism, either. I also ran my novel through plagiarism checkers, since it’s easy to accidentally write passages similar to existing work. 0% on those, but high numbers in the AI checkers.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 7 points 7 hours ago

I had to write a short story for English literature class in 2006 and I still have the file. Apparently over half of that is AI generated, which is pretty impressive on my part I must say.

[–] coolman@lemmy.world 25 points 10 hours ago

Seems like AI was trained on your book

[–] atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

before AI was even released
GPT-1 was released in 2018 (though i dont think you need an AI checker to verify if something was made by it or not)

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Was it? I was sure it was first released in 2022.

[–] atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

in 2022, gpt 3.5, along with chatgpt, got released

[–] smh@slrpnk.net 1 points 7 hours ago

Could have been. AI was trained on works written before AI was released.

[–] thevoidzero@lemmy.world 24 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I witnessed an interaction where a grad school professor used AI detector and threatened to fail a student for submitting "AI generated" paper. It was so stupid, even after showing them how if you just add a few spelling mistakes the detection says human written, or even putting their own email in AI detector to show an example. It's like the saying "little knowledge is dangerous"

[–] 13igTyme@piefed.social 6 points 9 hours ago

This is the Dunning Kruger era.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 7 hours ago

When I was at university I was pretty belligerent and if a professor tried that on me I'd have reported them for academic misconduct. They should be grading in the damn papers themselves, if they're not going to do that then what is the point in them?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 14 hours ago

ESPECIALLY don't use the "ai text humanizer" function of one that's absolutely certain that RL authors were AI 🤦🏻

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Pangram does work, actually. Here's independent validation by unaffiliated scientists:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w34223

Although white papers are biased, here's pangram's white paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.14873

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

I don’t buy it. Not until I can test it, hands on.

So many LLM papers have amazing (and replicated) results in testing, yet fall apart in the real world outside of the same lab tests everyone uses. Research is overfit to hell.

And that’s giving them the benefit on the doubt; assuming they didn’t train on the test set in one form or another. Like how Llama 4 technically aced LM Arena because they finetuned it to.

[–] qqq@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

It looks like Pangram specifically holds back 4 million documents during training and has a corpus of "out of domain" documents that they test against that didn't even have the same style as the testing data.

I'm surprised at how well it does; I really wonder what the model is picking out. I wonder if it's somehow the same "uncanny valley" signal that we get from AI generated text sometimes.

To show that our model is able to generalize outside of its training domain, we hold out all email from our training set and evaluate our model on the entire Enron email dataset, which was released publicly as a dataset for researchers following the extrication of the emails of all Enron executives in the legal proceedings in the wake of the company’s collapse.

Our model with email held out achieves a false positive rate of 0.8% on the Enron email dataset after hard negative mining, compared to our competitors (who may or may not have email in their training sets) which demonstrate a FPR of at least 2%. After generating AI examples based on the Enron emails, we find that our false negative rate is around 2%. We show an overall accuracy of 98% compared to GPTZero and Originality which perform at 89% and 91% respectively.

and

We exclude 4 million examples from our training pool as a holdout set to evaluate false positive rates following calibration on the above benchmark.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Looked at the preprint. False positive rate of 0.2%, that’s crazy. I kinda find it hard to believe? It doesn’t seem possible to me.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

That’s still 2 out of 1000 which if you’re using this at scale is not a great rate.

Would also be curious how that’s calculated if that’s done whit their test data that they’ve iterated on heavily or with actual feedback (which may never get back to them)

[–] qqq@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Wow thanks for sharing this. I always thought these things were just complete BS but it seems like some actually do work

[–] JustTheWind@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

I mean, scanning a well known piece of literature which likely exists online in its entirety is an obvious way to generate a false positive. This doesn't mean that these tools can't be useful. You need to understand how to use them. When it's appropriate, what context, how much trust to attribute to it, and what other tools you might use along side it. At the end of the day, it's up to the human to be informed, critical, and to form reasonable suspicions or judgements. This isn't novel to AI use, but most tools.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 35 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I think this is the most convincing proof that time travel is possible I've seen so far.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Occam would probably punch you for ignoring his razor so thoroughly 😄

[–] Juice@midwest.social 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is why I named my cat Occam.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago

Username doesn't check out 😁

[–] merdaverse@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago

Sometimes I think these things just give you random numbers. Would you be able to tell if they did?

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 53 points 14 hours ago

Her defense was that it wasn't an "artificial" intelligence: "It's alive. It's alive!"

[–] PityPityBangBang@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (3 children)

Perhaps that so many people have quoted that chapter in college and high school papers, book review and film reviews, and cultural criticism that maybe there is a weird "shoot the moon" situation where a "works of origin" begin to look like a "works of derivation" in LLMs.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 7 hours ago

The problem is it's not plagiarism detector (it would also be a pretty bad one since it can't detect quotes) it's an AI detector.

It's saying that a direct quote is AI, Which obviously isn't true, it's a quote, which is a different thing.

If 10% of my thesis is quoting other works that's not the same as my thesis being 10% AI generated. The distinction needs to be made.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, or perhaps there is no need to make up excuses for the Copyright Infringement, world bruning, infinite lying machine lying about what text is real vs generated by it. LLMs lie, LLM based LLM detectors lie about lies.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Frankenstein is out of copyright.

I would be unsurprised if you couldn't tease out the entire book. I wonder if Mary Shelly was a fan of dashes.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Being out of copyright is kinda irrelevant. There are lawsuits right now, because the AI firms apparently fed the AI's tons of copyrighted books.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

It is and it isn't. Those lawsuits mean they at least try to stop it from producing copyrighted work. They won't make Simpsons characters or produce anything from the house of mouse without major cajoling or some trickery in the prompt.

For the text from Frankenstein they are not even going to try.

Incidentally after writing this content I tried to get chatgpt to reproduce the first paragraph of chapter 3. It refused and offered a summary. I "reminded" it that the book is in the public domain and then it reproduced it without issue.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I tried to get chatgpt to reproduce the first paragraph of chapter 3. It refused and offered a summary. I “reminded” it that the book is in the public domain and then it reproduced it without issue.

I bet you could do exactly the same thing for a book that's still copyrighted.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago

I did see posts of someone doing it with Harry Potter but I think it took a little more effort

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 2 points 10 hours ago

They still obviously trained it on the copyrighted text. Which I think is what some claim is illegal without payment?

Mind you, I don't think copyright should cover that, for text at least. It is not in society's interest.

[–] LordAmplifier@pawb.social 41 points 14 hours ago

So the AI thinks this human-made text is actually AI-made and offers an AI tool that'll turn this human-made text into an AI-made text that'll appear more human than the human-made text? I wonder how it'd rewrite this paragraph.

Sometimes it feels like the formal texts I write (like anything I write in the context of a job application) sound a bit like AI, but I just try to immitate the dumb way HR people write their job postings.

[–] BennyInc@feddit.org 112 points 16 hours ago

Still no statement from Mary. Sounds like she is guilty and doesn’t know how to respond.

[–] IpsumLauren@lemmy.world 20 points 14 hours ago (8 children)

It is just comparing against well-known public texts available to AI crawlers.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Kenny2999@lemmy.world 41 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

She used the inhouse LLM abby normal.

load more comments
view more: next ›