this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
371 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

78154 readers
4553 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
371
AI content on Wikipedia - found via a simple ISBN checksum calculator (39C3) (media.ccc.de)
submitted 4 days ago by lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A talk from the hacker conference 39C3 on how AI generated content was identified via a simple ISBN checksum calculator (in English).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bossjack@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

I think the point is it would have been truly ironic if the AI itself was the authoritative fact checker instead of merely being a tool that built another tool.

If Claude was the fact checking tool instead of the ISBN validator, that's the real irony.

If in a messed up future, only an AI could catch a fellow AI, what's stopping the AI collective from returning false negatives? Who watches the watchers?