←back to thread

427 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
greatartiste ◴[] No.41901335[source]
For a human who deals with student work or reads job applications spotting AI generated work quickly becomes trivially easy. Text seems to use the same general framework (although words are swapped around) also we see what I call 'word of the week' where whichever 'AI' engine seems to get hung up on a particular English word which is often an unusual one and uses it at every opportunity. It isn't long before you realise that the adage that this is just autocomplete on steroids is true.

However programming a computer to do this isn't easy. In a previous job I had dealing with plagiarism detectors and soon realised how garbage they were (and also how easily fooled they are - but that is another story). The staff soon realised what garbage these tools are so if a student accused of plagiarism decided to argue back then the accusation would be quietly dropped.

replies(14): >>41901440 #>>41901484 #>>41901662 #>>41901851 #>>41901926 #>>41901937 #>>41902038 #>>41902121 #>>41902132 #>>41902248 #>>41902627 #>>41902658 #>>41903988 #>>41906183 #
tessierashpool9 ◴[] No.41901662[source]
the students are too lazy and dumb to do their own thinking and resort to ai. the teachers are also too lazy and dumb to assess the students' work and resort to ai. ain't it funny?
replies(4): >>41901734 #>>41901918 #>>41902146 #>>41902152 #
1. llmthrow102 ◴[] No.41901918[source]
To be fair, using humans to spend time sifting through AI slop determining what is and isn't AI generated is not a fight that the humans are going to win.