It's much easier to tell if athletes are doping than to 'detect' AI in text that's already Oscar-for-writing level good. I would suggest the latter is quite literally impossible.

▲

NicuCalcea 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

How do you know that it's easier? How do you prove athletes who have not been caught doping were in fact not doping?

▲

edmundsauto 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes. I don’t think it is easier to tell than AI, which always seems pretty obvious to me.

	▲	0x3f an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You have to consider that any AI content worthy of the Oscar shortlist is going to be very high-quality, and likely intensely hand/human-tweaked in the first place. It's not from the general population of all AI content out there. > I have always heard that dopers are consistently ahead of testing regimes I don't know about that, even the very biggest names with the most funding quite often get dinged for it. I suppose I'm not really saying that the detection rate for doping is high, though, just that it's much higher than AI detection in high-quality content (which I would suggest is approximately zero).