REVIEW 2 cited by
Machine Generated Text: A Comprehensive Survey of Threat Models and Detection Methods
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
read the original abstract
Machine generated text is increasingly difficult to distinguish from human authored text. Powerful open-source models are freely available, and user-friendly tools that democratize access to generative models are proliferating. ChatGPT, which was released shortly after the first edition of this survey, epitomizes these trends. The great potential of state-of-the-art natural language generation (NLG) systems is tempered by the multitude of avenues for abuse. Detection of machine generated text is a key countermeasure for reducing abuse of NLG models, with significant technical challenges and numerous open problems. We provide a survey that includes both 1) an extensive analysis of threat models posed by contemporary NLG systems, and 2) the most complete review of machine generated text detection methods to date. This survey places machine generated text within its cybersecurity and social context, and provides strong guidance for future work addressing the most critical threat models, and ensuring detection systems themselves demonstrate trustworthiness through fairness, robustness, and accountability.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
BiMarker: Enhancing Text Watermark Detection for Large Language Models with Bipolar Watermarks
BiMarker splits generated text into alternating positive and negative poles and uses the difference in green-token counts to detect LLM watermarks more accurately than KGW.
-
Large Language Models in Cybersecurity: Applications, Vulnerabilities, and Defense Techniques
A survey that maps LLM applications, vulnerabilities, and defenses across eight cybersecurity domains, but with significant citation and rigor problems.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.