REVIEW 6 cited by
Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooled
read the original abstract
Recent advancements in neural language modelling make it possible to rapidly generate vast amounts of human-sounding text. The capabilities of humans and automatic discriminators to detect machine-generated text have been a large source of research interest, but humans and machines rely on different cues to make their decisions. Here, we perform careful benchmarking and analysis of three popular sampling-based decoding strategies---top-$k$, nucleus sampling, and untruncated random sampling---and show that improvements in decoding methods have primarily optimized for fooling humans. This comes at the expense of introducing statistical abnormalities that make detection easy for automatic systems. We also show that though both human and automatic detector performance improve with longer excerpt length, even multi-sentence excerpts can fool expert human raters over 30% of the time. Our findings reveal the importance of using both human and automatic detectors to assess the humanness of text generation systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
GPT-3 shows that scaling an autoregressive language model to 175 billion parameters enables strong few-shot performance across diverse NLP tasks via in-context prompting without fine-tuning.
-
Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?
Recursive paraphrasing attacks substantially lower detection rates for multiple AI text detectors with only minor quality loss, while a theoretical analysis ties best-case AUROC to total variation distance between hum...
-
An Exploratory Study on LLM-Generated Code and Comments in Code Repositories
Detector proxy analysis of real repositories finds LLM-like code decreasing over time and common in tests, with more in company repos, substantial clones, stable but often ungrammatical comments, and few linked bugs.
-
Detecting LLM-Assisted Academic Dishonesty using Keystroke Dynamics
Keystroke dynamics models outperform text-only detectors for spotting LLM-assisted academic dishonesty in practical scenarios, though performance drops under adversarial conditions.
-
Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Text Detection
Shared task findings show F1=1.0000 for binary AI text detection and 0.9531 for model attribution using fine-tuned DeBERTa and BART transformers with ensembles.
-
Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Text Detection
Shared task findings show near-perfect binary detection of AI-generated text but greater difficulty in attributing outputs to particular language models.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.