this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
629 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

58197 readers
3237 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because you're training a detector on something that is designed to emulate regular languages closest possible, and human speech has so much incredible variability that it's almost impossible to identify if someone or something has been written by an AI.

You can detect maybe your typical generic chat GPT type outputs, but you can characterize a conversation with chat GPT or any of the other much better local models (privacy and control are aspects which make them better) and after doing that you can get radically human seeming outputs that are totally different from anything chat GPT will output.

In short, given a static block of text it's going to be nearly impossible to detect if it's coming from an AI. It's just too difficult to problem, and if you're going to solve it it's going to be immediately obsolete the next time someone fine tunes their own model

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah this makes a lot of sense considering the vastness of language and it’s imperfections (English I’m mostly looking at you, ya inbred fuck)

Are there any other detection techniques that you know of? Wb forcing AI models to have a signature that is guaranteed to be indentifiable, permanent, and unique for each tuning produced? It’d have to be not directly noticeable but easy to calculate in order to prevent any “distractions” for the users.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The output is pure text so you would have to hide the signature in the response itself. On top of being useless since most users slightly modify the text after receiving it, it would probably have a negative effect on the quality. It's also insanely complicated to train that kind of behavior into an llm.

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your implementation of my concept might be useless, but that doesn’t mean the concept is.

One possible solution would be to look at how responses are structured, letter frequencies, etc. The flexibility/ambiguous nature natural language is that you can word things in many many different ways which allows for some creative meta techniques to accomplish a fingerprint.

[–] theterrasque@infosec.pub 3 points 1 year ago

It is a valid idea, and not impossible. When generating text, a language model gives a list of possible tokens.. or more correctly it gives a weight to every possible token where most would be 0 weight. Then there's multiple ways to pick the next token, from always picking top one to select random from top X tokens to mirostat and so on. You could probably do some extra weighting to embed a sort of signature. At some quality loss

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

forcing AI models to have a signature that is guaranteed to be indentifiable, permanent, and unique for each tuning produced

Either AI remains entirely in the hands of fucks like open AI or this is impossible and easily removed. AI should be a free common use tool, not an extension of corporate control.

[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed, such power should belong to everyone or has yet to be discovered. Even Oppenheimer knew, once the cats out of the bag…

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Owning the means of AI production huh? I guess anarchists will win after all.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

It's no different than owning your computer. Something is absolutely a central and productivity boosting is artificial intelligence should not be kept in the hands of the few.

The only way that it could be is through government intervention, you don't need an anarchist to be against an open AI monopoly.