this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
388 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

69449 readers
3932 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
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

None of these detectors can work. It's just snake oil for technophobes.

Understand what "positive predictive value" means to see that. Though, in this case, I doubt that even the true rates can be known or that they remain constant over time.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

Even if they did, they would jsut be used to train a new generation of AI that could defeat the detector, and we'd be back round to square 1.

[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 15 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

It was used in schools...

Congratulations, you just created a generation of children who will never truly trust authority figures.

more useful than most of what's taught

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

On social media the standard is to call everything AI by default. It's nearly impossible to prove otherwise before people lose interest in the thread, so you can feel right every time. Nothing but win!

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 52 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

I have a competing technology that is nearly as accurate. For only $50 I'll send you this device that you will have unlimited license usage rights to. While not 53% accurate like my competitor, its proven by scientific studies to be 50% accurate. I also offer volume discounts if you buy 10 the price drops to only $45 per device. Sign up now!

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago

That is supposed to be reliable? It doesn't even have a subscription service.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

https://apnews.com/article/trump-penny-treasury-mint-192e3b9ad9891d50e7014997653051ba

Trump says he has directed US Treasury to stop minting new pennies, citing rising cost

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 53 minutes ago

Trump on a streak of rare Ws. No more pennies and kicking Poilievre out of the Canadian Parliament.

[–] coronach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 11 hours ago

Wait, he actually did something good?

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 13 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Actually is 51% favouring the side facing up when flipped

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago

That's easy to fix. Just randomize it. Flip a coin to see which side faces up.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Shhh! We're releasing that accuracy update in the next version of the product. We need to sell through our existing inventory of the less accurate ones.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 19 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Oh god. And this was mostly used against kids.

[–] simple@lemm.ee 69 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

53% is abysmal, it might as well be a coin flip. FYI this article is about a random one called BrandWell, popular AI detectors like GPTZero are much more accurate.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 30 points 17 hours ago

All of it is snake oil, it's fundamentally not possible to detect ai generated text without watermarking it first.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 39 points 21 hours ago

Much more accurate than guessing is not a strong endorsement.

[–] Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca 40 points 21 hours ago

54% of the time it's right 98% of the time

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 5 points 15 hours ago

The worst part is they may weasel out of it. If the claim was "it detects 98% of AI generated samples" it could do that while having a high false positive rate. I hate this timelime.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 8 points 18 hours ago

"They've done studies you know. 53% of the time, it works 98% of the time."