AI Detection is Impossible!

avatar
(Edited)

Ah the AI debate. This has been ongoing on Hive for awhile now. It faded but was recently reignited by the recent HiveWatchers brouhaha, itself part of the never-ending fight that reoccurs here on Hive every now and again.

The interesting question that I keep coming back to is, is it possible to detect AI? Let's dive into this question a little.

As some people have pointed out, the OpenAI folks themselves have made available a tool to detect AI content already. A strike against this is it's not very accurate in its detection. This could be for any number of reasons and these reasons don't really matter for our purposes. The question is can this detection be made better or not.

I think this question is meaningless and is taking us in the wrong direction in the AI argument. Why? Because I think detecting AI is going to become so difficult that it will be nearly impossible. It may not be there yet, but it soon will be.


Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

I've used this example before but I think it bears repeating:

I have been writing on the internet since 1996 when I started my first protoblog. On my computer where I've made backup copies of much of what I've written or on the Internet itself, there exists 27 years of my writing. 27 years! That is many thousands of articles of varying length. If I had been compiling this writing in book form, that would be many fair sized books. Hmm... maybe if I had done that I could actually be a published-author making decent money instead of a regular schmo making peanuts online.

But I digress.

Undoubtedly my writing voice has changed a lot over the years. Like all of us, the older I get, the more vocabulary I learn, the more phrases I learn as I read other things, the better my grammar gets, the better I get at explaining things, and so on and so forth. In short, my writing has evolved over the years. I think, however, probably even my oldest writing is still recognizable as my writing.

Now what happens when we gain the ability to train AI on all of that 27 years of writing? The AI can examine it and it can rank my vocabulary, what grammar I use most, what idioms I overuse, what topics do I tend to fall into constantly, and so on. In other words, It can analyze what makes my writing voice my writing voice.

I don't think it's a giant leap to say that if we were to train an AI on all of this data, then the resulting AI would sound a lot like me. I'm going to go further and say the resulting AI would probably sound exactly like me.

Now we can get into some pretty philosophical things here. I mean, if you fed
someone's life into an AI, maybe that AI would start to actually think it was the other person. Who is the real David? Well, obviously I am, the dude who has a body instead of the computer. But the AI would essentially have my mind. It would think it was me.

That would be a good sci-fi story. Actually I'm sure many sci-fi stories have already been written using this very idea. And maybe that's a problem we'll have to deal with someday soon. In fact, just to go off on a tangent, I have read from futurologists who have predicted that our generation—and I'm speaking of Generation X which I would be a member of—our generation will be the first to "live forever". That's in quotes because we won't live forever—we will die—but our descendants will feed all of our information into a computer, all of our photos, all of our writings, if we have diaries all of our diaries, all of the videos of us, and so the AI will essentially become us. Then future descendants will always be able to talk to us and ask us questions. We won't be here, we will be dead, but the AI that is masquerading as us will be so perfect that no one will be able to tell the difference, so perfect in fact that the AI itself will be convinced it is us.


Image by Dimitris Vetsikas from Pixabay

There are hints of the old philosophical problem: the ship of Theseus. If you don't know this problem, it is basically a question of whether an object that has had all of its original parts replaced is still the same object.

Plutarch wrote:

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

Philosophers have been arguing both sides of this question for a very very long time. You can perhaps see both sides to the debate. It is a new ship, yet it is still the old ship. And of course this is happening in our bodies constantly, as I talked about in this post. Our organs are regenerating themselves constantly, all the atoms in our body are changing, and so we get to the point where after several years where literally no part of our body is the same as it was a few years ago. Are we still us?

Well anyway these are philosophical questions that come to mind when I think of the futurologist prediction I mentioned above. But let's get back to the point: Training AI on our writing.


Image by Kohji Asakawa from Pixabay

What happens when we can train AI on our writing, and so it can adopt our voice perfectly? How will we detect that? Will detection be possible when we get to that point? Detection already seems difficult, but when we get to the point where we can train an AI on our own writing, will even partial detection be possible?

You might say that is far away so we don't have to worry about it for awhile. I would respond by saying I think it's closer than you think. I think we are on the bottom of an S-curve here, and we are about to go vertical in our technology.
ChatGPT took us all by surprise, but the next version of ChatGPT (version 4, to be released soon) will also blow us away. The version after that, which will come even faster, will also blow us away.

The word "the singularity," is overused, but it does fit here. It is where technology is progressing so quickly that we can't keep up anymore, where things are progressing so quickly, we just can't picture it.

I think AI cannot be detected. Right now we can detect it some, but this is a
losing battle. Soon we will not be able to detect it. So we have to figure out how do we deal with this problem if we don't have the ability to detect it.

I have some ideas, but this post is getting kind of long, so we'll deal with that next time. Stay tuned!

(title graphic made by me in Photoshop, using this photo which was released under the Creative Commons )

Hi there! David LaSpina is an American photographer and translator lost in Japan, trying to capture the beauty of this country one photo at a time and searching for the perfect haiku.


0
0
0.000
22 comments
avatar

the old philosophical problem: the ship of Theseus

Makes me wonder, "If a tree fell in the forest, but a shoot sprouted up from the roots and grew to maturity. Is it the same tree?"

0
0
0.000
avatar

I.just.don't.know.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Nor do I. Just guessing and rambling on about it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I've enjoyed the debates this week. I think everyone's on the same page, and no one really appreciates HW die hard militancy that doesn't take varying factors into account. Be interesting to see how the world is shaped by this as I definitely think it's going to shape it!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Totally. It's been interesting seeing everyone's viewpoint. Interesting too seeing that most of us are against HiveWatcher's methods. The tide might finally be turning against them. Guess we'll see. But yeah, I'm with you: this is radically going to change the world. It will be very interesting to watch.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Perhaps, part of the answer will be, does the answer respond to your comments, and to the comments resonate with you in a way that makes you feel like you are interacting with a human. That would change the game up here a lot, where getting rewarded for curation has such a strong effect on people’s behaviors.

If that doesn’t make sense, what I’m getting at is that if people are really concerned about not rewarding AI generated content, it seems like a “Comment Test”, so to be speak, might be the best AI detector. At least, until AI progresses to the point you’ve described.

I heard an interview with Rick Rubin last month in which he talked about a documentary on AI and the game Go.

He said the film highlighted the moment when a Go master was finally beaten by AI and that what was really interesting about the winning move is that all of the analysts and other Go masters (possibly in hindsight) could see the move (or the possibility of it) but wouldn’t have made it themselves. Having not seen the documentary myself, I can’t verify anything that Rick Reuben said or even be clear on what the content of the documentary was, but Rick’s comments suggest that, at least for now, there is a human element that is based on years of cultural programming, etc. that separates us from the logic of a machine.

I agree that AI is not the problem. This whole debate reminds me of the world of ideas.

Everybody is capable of receiving the same ideas (more or less), and many people do think of the same inventions, but only a few people actually act on those ideas and do anything with them that become well-known, or influential, or profitable, or popular.

It will be the same with AI. Anybody can use it, but not everyone will be able put it to use in the same way.

I also wonder what we will do if we create pro-human and anti-AI campaigns. What will we then do with human rights? Will we just continue to pull the human exceptionalism card forever? Or will we apply the same logic to human rights and start denigrating specific groups based on various differences (not that we’ve ever really stopped).

There doesn’t seem to be any evolution or progress for our species or consciousness in that route.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That comment from Rick Rubin is interesting. Cue Spoke saying something like "Humans are so illogical" (and Kirk's reply, "That's what makes us human").

I read an interesting article about ChatGPT. It detailed how it works, by, in general terms, running through a programming loop for every word it writes. At each word it asks itself for the best and most logical word next. But, the programmers put a twist in to make it sound more human. Because we usually do not pick the best and most logical word but rather the one that sounds nice in combination with other words, or the one we heard early that day and is still stuck in our heads, or just a random one that popped in. So ChatGPT was programmed to occasionally pick completely random words and occasionally pick several words down from the best, and so on.

I can just see the pro-human/anti-AI campaigns now... I can see the Fox News MAGA crowd really embracing that one. I can very much imagine that kind of thing is coming soon.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I also heard that about the way ChatGPT writes and found it really interesting. It’s hard to imagine that process, isn’t it?

As humans, we tend to think in sentences. At least, I think we do. The idea of what word should come after this one, though it might be running in the background of my cognitive processing, never even occurs to me until after I’ve first written something. Then I go back and consider word choice.

Is that what Chat GTP is doing, only a lot faster? I wonder.

As for the anti-AI rallies, yeah, I think the dystopian future might have just gotten a lot closer.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I think most of the time we think more in phrases. When we are really picking our words carefully, like in writing, it may be different, but when we are just shooting the shit with each other we grab a phrase here and phrase there. I think that's why we tend to repeat each other when we talk in groups and why most of the time we rarely use correct grammar or speak in complete sentences. Not sure.

So in a sense we are coming at speaking from the top down, while AI is coming from the bottom up. Is this a natural difference between something constructed and something grown? After all, organic life grows; robots are built more like lego models.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That makes sense, thinking in phrases. But again, just because we perceive ourselves as thinking and producing language in this way doesn’t mean that the process actually works like that.

I wonder what really goes on behind the scenes. AI is based on human neural networks, so part of me wonders if we don’t actually look for the next best word while we speak without being aware of it.

But there has to be a goal or a final product behind the language that we produce. We have to have an idea in mind and then the phrases come to us, and after that, possibly, we examine our words and adjust them if necessary.

Does AI have a final image in mind too?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Aw, did you think I was a human !PIMP ?
🤖didn't mean to mislead you.
!PGM

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sent 0.1 PGM - 0.1 LVL- 1 STARBITS - 0.05 DEC - 1 SBT - 0.1 THG - 0.000001 SQM - 0.1 BUDS tokens to @operahoser

remaining commands 8

BUY AND STAKE THE PGM TO SEND A LOT OF TOKENS!

The tokens that the command sends are: 0.1 PGM-0.1 LVL-0.1 THGAMING-0.05 DEC-15 SBT-1 STARBITS-[0.00000001 BTC (SWAP.BTC) only if you have 2500 PGM in stake or more ]

5000 PGM IN STAKE = 2x rewards!

image.png
Discord image.png

Support the curation account @ pgm-curator with a delegation 10 HP - 50 HP - 100 HP - 500 HP - 1000 HP

Get potential votes from @ pgm-curator by paying in PGM, here is a guide

I'm a bot, if you want a hand ask @ zottone444


0
0
0.000
avatar

It's probably best for people to simply downvote the content they want to downvote, upvote in the same way or ignore a person's post if that's what they choose.

No one needs a reason to downvote someone else. It's called freedom of choice.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Absolutely. Which basically was going to be my point of the next part. haha. Stop reading my mind.

Basically I think because detecting AI is impossible, we are going to have to fall back on judging a post on its own merit and not worry about if it was human written or AI written.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yep exactly. I DV for various reasons, and rarely feel inclined to give a reason. A person exercises their right to post as they like, and people have the right to vote as they like also. It's pretty simple.

Sometimes I get someone ask why I have downvoted them. Sometimes I respond with, have you ever asked why someone has upvoted you? I never get a good answer.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's a good response! I'll have to remember that.

0
0
0.000
avatar

If they ever give me a legit answer I'll be shocked. I'll still DV of course.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Something difficult to understand for an ordinary human being like me. In fact it causes me surprise when many claim that we may be paraphrasing to make a publication, imagine being able to explain this topic. I will be attentive. I think many will continue to want to stick us to the wall and keep us focused on what some may believe even if they are making up something that has no head or tail. For a moment I felt I was losing my mind, for sure new generations will move in a more practical way, let's see what can be invented, someone will come out to say anything based on their truth. In the meantime I will continue reading articles by this community @dbooster

0
0
0.000
avatar

Reading this I suspect I missed a lot of HW debates, maybe better as usually these things aren't really spreading any positive vibes..

Anyway, in the past month(s) I've started learning how to prompt better, to create content matrixes and stuff like that. While doing so, I've obviously played around as I also have some course material how you can teach ChatGTP to write like you. I'm not at that part of the course yet because I learned what I needed (the content matrixes and doing customer research with ChatGTP) and then started focussing on building some stuff.

I read tons of times now by others who actually use it for their (social media) content that you can let ChatGTP talk like it's you so I've got 0 doubt that it's possible. The thing is, you need to be a good prompter. To use it with maximum benefit, you need to know exactly what you want as that's crucial when you write a prompt. It's not easy, so I've learned.

The thing is, I love to write myself way too much to let AI do that for me. I love the personal touch, AI will only throw out personal stories from me if I first feed that info. It will not be able to express these things with the feeling in my words as I would do it myself. And that's probably exactly why I don't feel interested in teaching it to write like me. I'm not at that point yet.

I believe it's very smart to learn at least a bit how to properly prompt because once you start playing around with it, you will see that it's useful for so many things.

PS these AI detectors suck, as I've been educating myself about the topic to learn prompting and see other possible benefits for one of my projects in the future, I have also checked the se detectors. Guess what? 9 out of 10 times, it marked half of my personal writing as AI! And when I started editing, it sometimes didn't mark the same area as AI, but then took another new written paragraph as AI.

At some point I wondered if this would get many people on Hive in trouble being falsely accused. I'm not risking my rep here and the connections I made for an AI prompted blog. It would be very dumb. But what if these detectors mark our text as AI falsely, people who have not seen this with their own eyes should drop one of their drafts in there for fun, you could be shocked how often it marks your writing as AI written.

I know someone on Hive who had a whole book written and wanted to publish it in parts, could not use it because it was detected as AI when he ran it through that site. These are some things I really dislike about the upcoming AI trend. Someone's rep could be ruined falsely.. imagine that..

It made me decide to stick to short content and just daily blog style things instead of hours of long reads.

PS sorry for the book comment :)


Posted via pimp.media

0
0
0.000