cm0002@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 23 hours agoThe FTC cracks down on an AI content detector that promised 98% accuracy but was only right 53% of the time.www.pcmag.comexternal-linkmessage-square28fedilinkarrow-up1401arrow-down14
arrow-up1397arrow-down1external-linkThe FTC cracks down on an AI content detector that promised 98% accuracy but was only right 53% of the time.www.pcmag.comcm0002@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 23 hours agomessage-square28fedilink
minus-squareGeneral_Effort@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14arrow-down1·9 hours agoNone of these detectors can work. It’s just snake oil for technophobes. Understand what “positive predictive value” means to see that. Though, in this case, I doubt that even the true rates can be known or that they remain constant over time.
minus-squareT156@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·9 hours agoEven if they did, they would jsut be used to train a new generation of AI that could defeat the detector, and we’d be back round to square 1.
minus-squareCheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·15 minutes agoExactly, AI by definition cannot detect AI generated content because if it knew where the mistakes were it wouldn’t make them.
None of these detectors can work. It’s just snake oil for technophobes.
Understand what “positive predictive value” means to see that. Though, in this case, I doubt that even the true rates can be known or that they remain constant over time.
Even if they did, they would jsut be used to train a new generation of AI that could defeat the detector, and we’d be back round to square 1.
Exactly, AI by definition cannot detect AI generated content because if it knew where the mistakes were it wouldn’t make them.