Here’s how to spot AI writing, according to Wikipedia

Comments

• spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  That is an excellent read, not just for how to spot AI but to also many examples of non-neutral wording.

  It is honestly pretty entertaining how many of the common signs of AI output do not fit the Wikipedia style requirements, and how many of them remind me of high school essays.

  source
• jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Something that popped up when I was looking up information for Eyes of Wakanda:

  Image

  Image

  Which seems copy pasted from another AI generated site:

  blavity.com/…/eyes-of-wakanda-ending-explained

  FWIW - NONE of this is true. Okoye does not appear in any of the four episodes, voiced by Danai Gurira or anyone else. Given the times the episodes are set in, 1260 BC, 1200 BC, 1400 AD and 1896 AD, that would have been impossible.

  Episode 4 does have a future Black Panther, but she’s from 500 years in the future (1896 + 500 = 2396?) and voiced by Anika Noni Rose.

  source

  • sykaster@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Yup, there seems to be misinformation there. Even perplexity gets it wrong, but does say there’s some inconsistency between websites.

    source
• addie@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  That’s why I like make basic grammatical mistakes, speling erors, and include a few fucks in my internet writing. Nobody’s not gona mistake me for no got dagned robot.

  source
• Blackfeathr@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I’d gotten really good at discerning a chatGPT bot from a human account just from years of catching bots on Reddit.

  There’s a lot of red flags and tells that would be very hard to completely eradicate. There will always be an uncanny valley.

  source

  • Perspectivist@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    You think you have - but there’s really no way of knowing.

    Just because someone writes like a bot doesn’t mean they actually are one. Feeling like “you’ve caught one” doesn’t mean you did - it just means you think you did. You might have been wrong, but you never got confirmation to know for sure, so you have no real basis for judging how good your detection rate actually is. It’s effectively begging the question - using your original assumption as “proof” without actual verification.

    And then there’s the classic toupee fallacy: “All toupees look fake - I’ve never seen one that didn’t.” That just means you’re good at spotting bad toupees. You can’t generalize from that and claim you’re good at detecting toupees in general, because all the good ones slip right past you unnoticed.

    source

    • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Studies have shown we’re pretty bad at detecting good AI stuff, regardless of how skilled we think we are. It’s the crappy AI slop that makes everybody think they’re Sherlock Holmes.

      source
    • pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Just to add to this. I’ve noticed some of my co workers who have developing English skills sound like LLMs sometimes. I imagine this is probably because they’ve only wrote English in a school or work setting and never for personal communication.

      …or maybe they’re all just using LLMs idk

      source
    • Blackfeathr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I mean I wasn’t going around accusing everyone of being a bot or thinking that I was right all the time. I did have a few false positives and owned up to it. But once you see the pattern of behavior (big gap on joined date vs first active date, only posting in karma farming subs or subs known to have high bot populations) and accounts literally keeping the “as a large language model…” Or “Okay, here’s a supportive Reddit-style comment with some minor spelling mistakes…” In some of their comments.

      I have screenshots to prove it but if you really believe I don’t know what I’m talking about then there’s really nothing I can say to dissuade that.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Jason2357@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    There really are 2 kinds of AI content, one-shot AI slop, and something that someone has gone back-and-forth on a few times to edit and suggest changes. The later would be very hard to tell from human generated text.

    source
• morphballganon@mtgzone.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  A lot of that is “stuff humans added to essays in school in the last 30 years to fill space and sound impartial”

  source
• whalebiologist@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Really helpful page thank you for sharing.

  source
• 6stringringer@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I was beginning to think I was smarter than the internet. In some facets we all are much smarter than AI. However, we are not all clever enough how to explain and express ourselves to the fullest. Slight variations in nuance are crucial to the humour of AI. Otherwise a giant entity resembling human consciousness is taking form. The last F’ng thing I’d like to see is a “Lawnmower Man” type scenario that takes every word ever said or googled by anyone for its literal translation be it completely metaphorical and without the understanding of underlying context. Sometimes those thoughts creep into my dreams.

  source
• FenrirIII@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  It terrfies me as someone who just got back into writing that my work might ever be accused of being AI-generated. I use Word (because I paid for it dammit) and it keeps trying to force Copilot on me. I’m hoping it doesn’t screw up my file somehow

  source