If you have text that you can prove is not AI-generated (e.g. it is demonstrably older than about 5 years) that gets an AI flag, you could try tweeting at the Pangram founder, I've seen screenshots of him offering bounties (admittedly mostly as a dare to claims he doesn't believe).
Sometimes it pays to attempt the impossible.
But by analogy compression is also impossible. And yet zip moves...
So I think there's very little incentive for an arms race to occur in this case.
I think the founder once said something like "well you can try to fight our detection and do a bunch of stuff, you just might find yourself with a pile of extremely garbled text that is less than useless".
[citation needed] - my understanding of how entropy works in real photos vs. synthetic images (AI or not) is that this is extremely difficult without severe degradation of image quality.
Taking a photo of an AI generated image on my grubby laptop screen with my phone, moire and all, still got detected. So the signal it's using is pretty robust.
Where’s the line? If you take a selfie in Times Square, and there’s an AI-generated image in an ad behind you, that photo you took isn’t AI-generated.
I’m honestly surprised pangram got this right, with my human eyes it feels indistinguishable but apparently not !
Pangram gave correct results for all of them (the original one is No AI; all the others are Likely AI).
Think of the resources it takes to train good text generators, with perfect knowledge of the next token to generate. Now imagine to trying to do it with a stochastic output of yes/no only (needing to guess proper outputs, and the signal you're getting isn't even deterministic / consistent). You don't even have the distribution over output tokens, you only have yes/no based on the tokens you did generate (a far weaker signal).
It is not a lucrative business and they are not clever people to begin with
I think for small snippets and well defined codebases, we probably can’t,
But if we say a fully vibecoded project vs handmade, I suspect there are AI tells outside of basic stuff like bar names etc that a model can learn, and it will be fun to know.
We could probably also do these for maths.
I guess what I’m getting at, is even in these days extremely verifiable fields, I guess AI has diverged enough that I think we can train a detector to separate AI from how a human thinks?
I would love if Meta licensed this tech to use for everything on Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp. Including ads!
But I agree it’s good for longer text of 1000+ words.
Do you mind providing that example?
Do you believe it generally doesn't work or do you believe that if you work at it you can evade them and therefore there's no point to it?