My experience in testing actual AI written content on willing participants is that people are entirely useless at detecting AI written content with any reliability whatsoever.

▲

relevant_stats 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't know what your experience is, according to mine there are some people who are better than chance at picking this up.

And I believe my experience is something expected. People are also certain kind of a neural network. If an LLM system is trainable to be a decent detector, I don't see a reason why at least some people couldn't be.

▲

vidarh 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

I haven't seen any evidence an LLM is trainable to be a decent detector for anything people have made any kind of attempts at trying to get past them. Which is as expected as access to a detector effectively makes the problem equivalent to the halting problem (you can tweak the output using a detector as judge until you have a process to bypass it). Some of them are somewhat able to recognised "raw" output.

	▲	relevant_stats 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, and the problem we are having here is 'raw' output. LLMgenerated slop is zero-effort bullshit, not an elaborate scheme to prove a philosophical thesis. There is no economy for mediaworkers doing the latter. Similar as with coding, yes, halting problem!, but we've been always reviewing code nonetheless.