AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It’s unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
Yeah but to say humans can’t do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can’t classify data.
Software can’t tell truth from lies because software doesn’t even know what those are. It doesn’t know anything. It’s a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there’s another person looking a back at them.
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can’t, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can’t really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.
dead-eyed stare in librarian
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It’s unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
You just described adversarial training, something I’ve been hearing about for at least a few years now.
How could that even be true since it was humans thay trained ai. What a dumb statement ahh
Ai can do plenty of classification tasks better than humans though. It’s not like every entity that trains another is fundamentally smarter.
Yeah but to say humans can’t do this when humans doing it were what provided it the data is a dumb statement. Humans classified the data so that AI could learn you wouldnt say humans can’t classify data.
Humans can, ai can do it better than humans in many areas though.
That’s a MUCH different statement though, and not at all relevant to a claim that AI is able to do things humans CAN’T do.
In most areas it can’t. It can do a much worse job though, if that is what you are looking for.
Software can’t tell truth from lies because software doesn’t even know what those are. It doesn’t know anything. It’s a parrot, a magic trick, a mirror to fool people (people like George Lucus) into thinking there’s another person looking a back at them.
Regardless many ai classifiers outperform humans at classifying. Your comment seems irrelevant to the discussion.
As opposed to your comment moving the goalposts from an AI doing something humans can’t, to them just being better than humans (which is absolutely arguable in most cases)?
The parameters set for classifying that are basically non-existant. So no, they can’t really do any of that. AI-bros will readily claim they can though, because it is like really important to them.