Most active commenters
  • gblargg(6)

←back to thread

263 points josephcsible | 11 comments | | HN request time: 2.045s | source | bottom
Show context
tyushk ◴[] No.46178228[source]
> A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.

The image is likely AI generated in this case, but this does not seem like the best strategy for finding out if an image is AI generated.

replies(11): >>46178306 #>>46178326 #>>46178446 #>>46178714 #>>46178833 #>>46178906 #>>46178907 #>>46179028 #>>46179295 #>>46179902 #>>46184661 #
skissane ◴[] No.46178833[source]
Someone I know is a high school English teacher (being vague because I don’t want to cause them trouble or embarrassment). They told me they were asking ChatGPT to tell them whether their students’ creative writing assignments were AI-generated or not-I pointed out that LLMs such as ChatGPT have poor reliability at this; classifier models trained specifically for this task perform somewhat better, yet also have their limitations. In any event, if the student has access to whatever model the teacher is using to test for AI-generation (or even comparable models), they can always respond adversarially by tinkering with an AI-generated story until it is no longer classified as AI-generated
replies(3): >>46178879 #>>46179111 #>>46179423 #
techjamie ◴[] No.46178879[source]
Reminds me of a Reddit story that made the rounds about a professor asking ChatGPT if it wrote papers, to which it frequently responded afirmatively. He sent an angry email about it, and a student responded by showing a response from ChatGPT claiming it wrote his email.
replies(1): >>46179083 #
1. gblargg ◴[] No.46179083[source]
> student responded by showing a response from ChatGPT claiming it wrote his email

Which is actually fine. Students need to do their own homework. A teacher can delegate writing emails.

replies(4): >>46179106 #>>46179138 #>>46179224 #>>46179692 #
2. arcanemachiner ◴[] No.46179106[source]
I believe you just got whooshed.
replies(2): >>46179234 #>>46179664 #
3. recursive ◴[] No.46179138[source]
But if he didn't delegate, and it said he did, that would suggest that the methodology doesn't really work.
4. weird-eye-issue ◴[] No.46179224[source]
You missed the entire point lol
replies(1): >>46179670 #
5. MengerSponge ◴[] No.46179234[source]
A person arguing in favor of LLM use failed to comprehend the context or argument? Unpossible!
replies(2): >>46179659 #>>46181445 #
6. gblargg ◴[] No.46179659{3}[source]
I don't think I was arguing for LLMs. I wish nobody used them. But the argument against a student using it for assignments is significantly different than that against people in general using them. It's similar to using a calculator or asking someone else for the answer: fine normally but not if the goal is to demonstrate that you learned/know something.

I admit I missed the joke. I read it as the usual "you hypocrite teacher, you don't want us using tools but you use them" argument I see. There's no need to be condescending towards me for that. I see now that the "joke" was about the unreliability of AI checkers and making the teacher really angry by suggesting that their impassioned email wasn't even their writing, bolstered by their insistence that checkers are reliable.

replies(1): >>46197368 #
7. gblargg ◴[] No.46179664[source]
Yes, I missed the student using the teacher's trust in those tools to make them even more angry and neuter their angry email that they (probably) actually wrote themselves. Well-played.
8. gblargg ◴[] No.46179670[source]
Yeah, I'm really sorry. I didn't realize it would upset so many people.
9. gblargg ◴[] No.46179692[source]
Apologies to everyone I upset by this comment. It was just an innocent mis-reading of the joke. Lesson learned.
10. gblargg ◴[] No.46181445{3}[source]
I realize you might have failed to comprehend the level of my argument. It wasn't even about LLMs in particular, rather having someone/something else do your work for you. I read it as the student criticizing the teacher for not writing his own emails, since the teacher criticizes the students for not writing their own classwork. Whether it's an LLM or them hiring someone else to do the writing, this is what my rebuttal applied to. I saw what I thought was flawed reasoning and wanted to correct it. I hope it's clear why a student using an LLM (or another person) to write classwork is far more than a quality issue, whereas someone not being tested/graded using an LLM to prepare written material is "merely" a quality issue (and the personal choice to atrophy their mental fitness).
11. IAmBroom ◴[] No.46197368{4}[source]
Two posts from you addressing a one-line reply? May be time to put down the coffee and take a drag from the mood-altering-substance of your preference.