/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Experts explain why there's no magic formula to always distinguish human-written and AI-written text, meaning AI writing detectors can only make a strong guess

Can AI writing detectors be trusted?  We dig into the theory behind them.  —  If you feed America's most important legal document …

Ars Technica Benj Edwards

Discussion

  • @mmitchell.bsky.social Margaret Mitchell on bluesky
    For this article from @benjedwards.bsky.social , I got to spend some time explaining the fundamental “AI” concept of “perplexity”.  https://arstechnica.com/...
  • @benjedwards@mastodon.social Benj Edwards on mastodon
    As educators panic about students using ChatGPT to write papers, many reach for AI detectors that perform slightly better than a random classifier  —  Many painful false accusations are the result.  I wrote about why people should not rely on this imperfect tech:  —  https://arst…
  • @JMarkOckerbloom@mastodon … John Mark Ockerbloom on mastodon
    A reminder that, just as you shouldn't rely on “AI” to write accurate prose, you also shouldn't rely on automated “AI detectors” to accurately flag cheating.  Most of them, like the large language models they're trying to ID, are based on statistical pattern analysis rather than …
  • @chrismoranuk Chris Moran on x
    1) If you're interested in LLMs but want to understand more, this is really useful. It's also important to hear how inaccurate these ‘detectors’ are because I still encounter people who think you can paste text into ChatGPT and ask it for an opinion... https://arstechnica.com/...
  • @mmitchell_ai @mmitchell_ai on x
    For this article from @benjedwards, I got to spend some time explaining the fundamental “AI” concept of “perplexity”. =) https://arstechnica.com/...
  • @j_bertolotti Jacopo Bertolotti on x
    Reminder that you can NEVER use a neural network to spot whether a text was written by a neural network. Corollary: You can never accuse anyone of cheating based on what a neural network said. https://arstechnica.com/...
  • @_alialkhatib @_alialkhatib on x
    shouldn't be surprising, but we're in an era of bad reporting on AI, so i'm taking wins where i can: this article on detecting AI-generated text (and why it's practically impossible) investigated/reported by @benjedwards is really good https://arstechnica.com/... just a few riffs…
  • @benjedwards Benj Edwards on x
    As educators panic about students using ChatGPT to write papers, many reach for AI detectors that perform slightly better than random chance Many painful false accusations are the result. I wrote about why people should not rely on this imperfect tech: https://arstechnica.com/...
  • @tobywalsh Toby Walsh on x
    If you feed America's most important legal document—the US Constitution—into a tool designed to detect text written by AI models like ChatGPT, it will tell you that the document was almost certainly written by AI. https://arstechnica.com/...
  • r/HighStrangeness r on reddit
    Simulation Universe?:  AI detectors think the US Constitution was written by AI
  • r/offbeat r on reddit
    Why AI detectors think the US Constitution was written by AI