| ▲ | 40four a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
I could be wrong, but I just don’t see how trying to “detect” LLM generated texts is ever going to work. The only thing that makes any sense if you truly want to have confidence a human wrote it is some type of “proof of work“ system. I think there’s a lot of interesting ways to approach the proof of work problem with different pros and cons, but that is where our energy should be focused if we seriously want to solve this problem. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | IshKebab a day ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> I just don’t see how trying to “detect” LLM generated texts is ever going to work He literally demonstrated a working system in this post. Do you mean you'll never get to 100% accuracy? Clearly, but you don't need that. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | alok-g 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
>> don’t see how trying to “detect” LLM generated texts is ever going to work ... if the assumption is LLMs are being optimized to evade such detection. PS: I didn't read the actual article. I think it is instruction-tuning that is having LLMs write differently from humans, and this is not being optimized away. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jaco6 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
[dead] | |||||||||||||||||