REVIEW 3 cited by
ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text
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
ChatGPT has the ability to generate grammatically flawless and seemingly-human replies to different types of questions from various domains. The number of its users and of its applications is growing at an unprecedented rate. Unfortunately, use and abuse come hand in hand. In this paper, we study whether a machine learning model can be effectively trained to accurately distinguish between original human and seemingly human (that is, ChatGPT-generated) text, especially when this text is short. Furthermore, we employ an explainable artificial intelligence framework to gain insight into the reasoning behind the model trained to differentiate between ChatGPT-generated and human-generated text. The goal is to analyze model's decisions and determine if any specific patterns or characteristics can be identified. Our study focuses on short online reviews, conducting two experiments comparing human-generated and ChatGPT-generated text. The first experiment involves ChatGPT text generated from custom queries, while the second experiment involves text generated by rephrasing original human-generated reviews. We fine-tune a Transformer-based model and use it to make predictions, which are then explained using SHAP. We compare our model with a perplexity score-based approach and find that disambiguation between human and ChatGPT-generated reviews is more challenging for the ML model when using rephrased text. However, our proposed approach still achieves an accuracy of 79%. Using explainability, we observe that ChatGPT's writing is polite, without specific details, using fancy and atypical vocabulary, impersonal, and typically it does not express feelings.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Zero-Shot Detection of LLM-Generated Code via Approximated Task Conditioning
ATC detects AI-generated code by asking a language model to reconstruct the programming task, then scoring token entropy under that reconstructed task, outperforming prior zero-shot detectors on Python, C++, and Java ...
-
Detecting LLM-Generated Short Answers and Effects on Learner Performance
A fine-tuned GPT-4o detects human-annotated LLM-generated short answers at 80% accuracy, outperforming GPTZero, and flagged LLM use is associated with higher posttest MCQ scores.
-
Survey on AI-Generated Media Detection: From Non-MLLM to MLLM
A survey organizing AI-generated media detection into Non-MLLM and MLLM based methods, with task and benchmark taxonomies.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.