REVIEW 1 cited by
To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question!
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
To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question!
read the original abstract
ChatGPT has become a global sensation. As ChatGPT and other Large Language Models (LLMs) emerge, concerns of misusing them in various ways increase, such as disseminating fake news, plagiarism, manipulating public opinion, cheating, and fraud. Hence, distinguishing AI-generated from human-generated becomes increasingly essential. Researchers have proposed various detection methodologies, ranging from basic binary classifiers to more complex deep-learning models. Some detection techniques rely on statistical characteristics or syntactic patterns, while others incorporate semantic or contextual information to improve accuracy. The primary objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. Additionally, we evaluated other AI-generated text detection tools that do not specifically claim to detect ChatGPT-generated content to assess their performance in detecting ChatGPT-generated content. For our evaluation, we have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains and user-generated responses from popular social networking platforms. The dataset serves as a reference to assess the performance of various techniques in detecting ChatGPT-generated content. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
"Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models
Real-world jailbreak prompts collected from the wild achieve up to 0.95 attack success rates against major LLMs including GPT-4, with some persisting for over 240 days.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.