Timeline for If I let ChatGPT improve a post of mine linguistically, does that count as "AI generated content"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10 at 17:18 | comment | added | Kevin B | @SirBenet within reason... sure. but if you're giving tool X a paragraph of text and it's just sending that text to an llm and getting "reformatted" results and running with it, that's AI generated content. Just because tool X can be used responsibly to improve grammar and fix typos doesn't mean every usage of it isn't producing AI generated content. The example in the question is AI generated content. | |
| Jan 10 at 16:55 | comment | added | SirBenet | @KevinB If I'm interpreting correctly, the objection is that I've said things like "MS Word's AI [is well-constrained to fixing grammar]" to mean "MS Word's AI in combination with the software that runs it to produce and present outputs in a certain format"? It sounds like otherwise we agree that the examples in my post (Grammarly, Google Docs, Microsoft Word, or asking a chatbot to point out errors to verify manually) don't make an answer AI-generated. | |
| Jan 10 at 16:42 | comment | added | Kevin B | My point isn't that fixing typos using an LLM's output make an entire post AI generated, rather, that claiming an LLM is fixing typos or that it's improving grammar is misguided. While, yes, you can use it's output in various ingenious ways to do a lot of things, at the end of the day it's just outputting text; it's the tools that surround interpreting that output that makes it seem like it's doing more than it is. Giving an LLM an entire paragraph and then using the result it returns is using AI generated content. Using tools designed to improve grammar that are using an LLM is not. | |
| Jan 10 at 16:37 | comment | added | SirBenet | @KevinB I'm not sure I understand the relevance. Regardless of the software it's facilitated through, I wouldn't call a typo fix or pointing out an error rephrasing (and generally wouldn't say it makes the answer generated by AI). | |
| Jan 10 at 16:28 | comment | added | Kevin B | @SirBenet the LLM isn't making a typo fix, it was prompted by the software, and the software presented the result as a typo fix. | |
| Jan 10 at 16:26 | comment | added | SirBenet | @KevinB IMO rephrasing implies a greater change than just, for example, a typo fix - and also implies the the act of making the change rather than pointing out the error. | |
| Jan 10 at 16:16 | comment | added | Kevin B | @SirBenet rephrasing on a word by word or phrase by phrase basis is still rephrasing. It's still just an LLM, outputting text to a prompt. | |
| Jan 10 at 16:04 | comment | added | SirBenet | @ResistanceIsFutile "AI rephrases. It does not just fix the grammatical errors" - MS Word/etc.'s AI is well-constrained to just fixing grammar. The suggestion in my post was using an LLM to just point out and explain the errors. "Again, I am not talking about tools, I am talking about people." - Same. A person's classification judgement still has an accuracy, precision, etc. Better than detectors in most tests I've seen, but still not great. | |
| Jan 10 at 15:56 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | AI rephrases. It does not just fix the grammatical errors. Again, I am not talking about tools, I am talking about people. I don't need any tools to tell that you are also using AI in your posts. To which extent, I don't know, but the point is that it can be recognized. | |
| Jan 10 at 15:47 | comment | added | SirBenet | @ResistanceIsFutile "all AI content even partial is not allowed" - IMO text fixed by MS Word/etc. isn't really "AI generated", but regardless for this I'm already supposing grammar-fixed posts are true positives if caught. "not because "there is high sensitivity" but because [AI content is recognized as such]" - you just pretty much defined high sensitivity. "You are worried that tools sensitivity (if used) might be too high" - specifically, that we don't have anywhere close to 1.00 AUROC for this and sensitivity to the extent suggested would be at the cost of high false discovery rate. | |
| Jan 10 at 15:31 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | Another thing I forgot to mention about sensitivity and tools. You are worried that tools sensitivity (if used) might be too high. But, you are forgetting that people will organically see AI posts, and they will recognize them without using any tools. So, yes any post rephrased by AI can be detected as being AI. | |
| Jan 10 at 15:23 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | You are talking about "abusing AI". On sites where AI content is forbidden, all AI content even partial is not allowed. So ye, grammatical fixes (rephrasing) being done by AI will be detected. And not because "there is high sensitivity" but because it was AI generated or assisted content that was recognized as such. We don't judge quality and correctness of AI answers because there is not enough people on sites who would be able to do that. And not all hallucinations can be recognized by many people. | |
| Jan 10 at 14:54 | comment | added | SirBenet | @ResistanceIsFutile "Second, what is "everything else" in this context?" - factors used to determine if an account is abusing AI. Are they answering questions at an inhuman rate? Are they giving links/functions/.. that don't actually exist? Or conversely, do their posts have images? Do they mention features that are too new to have been in training data? Nothing conclusive on its own, but plenty to factor into a judgement. "sensitivity you are talking about does not exist as such" - Not certain what you mean by this. If reviewed grammar fixes alone can cause suspension, sensitivity is high | |
| Jan 10 at 14:38 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | "when everything else is legitimately human" First of all, on some SE sites, even if you write half of the post using AI, the whole post will be removed. Second, what is "everything else" in this context? If the post is rephrased by AI, people can only see rephrased content, we cannot see and verify that AI made only grammatical fixes. The sensitivity you are talking about does not exist as such. Rephrased content can easily look like completely AI generated. | |
| Jan 10 at 14:25 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | I stand corrected. My source is meta.stackexchange.com/a/389844 | |
| Jan 10 at 14:25 | comment | added | SirBenet | @ResistanceIsFutile "It is not a false flag if you can detect that some post was rephrased by AI" - I don't mean to say here that the grammar-fixed posts themselves would be false positives if detected (although that could be argued) but rather that the sensitivity you'd need to have to suspend users based on text-only grammar fixes, when everything else is legitimately human, would cause a high false discovery rate of entirely human posts. | |
| Jan 10 at 14:09 | comment | added | SirBenet | @ResistanceIsFutile "I don't know from where you got that, but it is not true. Maybe some moderators used AI detectors, but not the Stack Overflow moderators" - See here for the claim directly from an SO mod: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/424979/… "Another userscript allowed us to run posts against AI detectors like Huggingface, which we and other community members used to detect ChatGPT posts." | |
| Jan 10 at 14:01 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | It is not a false flag if you can detect that some post was rephrased by AI. Also depends on how large those changes are. For someone proficient in English, the changes might be small enough, but for people that are not changes will be more prominent and AI will be more easily detectable. So when you say "it is fine to use AI to rephrase your post", you are actively suggesting to many people they can use something that can get them into trouble. | |
| Jan 10 at 13:56 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | "IIRC moderators used to even have a browser extension to streamline feeding posts to huggingface.co/roberta-base-openai-detector but were stopped by SE staff. " I don't know from where you got that, but it is not true. Maybe some moderators used AI detectors, but not the Stack Overflow moderators that were responsible for removing the majority of AI posts. | |
| Jan 10 at 13:45 | comment | added | SirBenet | @ResistanceIsFutile "AI text detectors are not used when detecting AI posts" - I don't mean to say that it's the sole factor (the opposite, in fact), but it is definitely at least used by users raising flags. IIRC moderators used to even have a browser extension to streamline feeding posts to huggingface.co/roberta-base-openai-detector but were stopped by SE staff. "[..] risks their posts being removed and suspension" - For reviewed grammar fixes alone to trigger a suspension would suggest to me a huge false discovery rate from overconfidence in ability to detect small text changes. | |
| Jan 10 at 13:21 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | AI text detectors are not used when detecting AI posts on SE. And yes, people can tell the difference. Even in the above short example, one can detect AI writing. Maybe not enough to warrant immediate post removal, but enough to put the user on someone's radar. So anyone who uses the AI even for merely rephrasing what they have written risks their posts being removed and suspension. And high reputation users are no exception. | |
| Jan 10 at 13:03 | comment | added | SirBenet | @ResistanceIsFutile I'm not convinced that a human-written post with some AI-suggested fixes would even show up above the noise that AI text detectors inherently have. Other factors, like the user's behavior/history, would also point to human (to whatever extent it does for other human posts). | |
| Jan 10 at 12:58 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | Yes, we have banned AI generated content because it is mostly spewing nonsense. And we can only successfully fight such content based on the ground that it is AI generated. Because rephrased AI looks very similar (the same) as completely generated content allowing AI usage for rephrasing is basically allowing all AI as we are losing our only viable tools for fighting it. | |
| Jan 10 at 12:13 | history | answered | SirBenet | CC BY-SA 4.0 |