←back to thread

Trains cancelled over fake bridge collapse image

(www.bbc.com)
263 points josephcsible | 2 comments | 07 Dec 25 00:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tyushk ◴[07 Dec 25 00:56 UTC] 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 ◴[07 Dec 25 03:13 UTC] 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 ◴[07 Dec 25 03:21 UTC] 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 #
gblargg ◴[07 Dec 25 04:09 UTC] 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 #
arcanemachiner ◴[07 Dec 25 04:16 UTC] No.46179106{3}[source]▶
I believe you just got whooshed.
replies(2): >>46179234 #>>46179664 #
MengerSponge ◴[07 Dec 25 04:49 UTC] No.46179234{4}[source]▶
A person arguing in favor of LLM use failed to comprehend the context or argument? Unpossible!
replies(2): >>46179659 #>>46181445 #
1. gblargg ◴[07 Dec 25 06:37 UTC] No.46179659{5}[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 #
2. IAmBroom ◴[08 Dec 25 20:41 UTC] No.46197368[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.