Comment by Zigurd
7 days ago
>> But if a vendor makes a pretty believable claim that there are repetitive statistical patterns in LLM output, it's all of sudden treated the same as palm reading.
That's what fortunetellers do. The problem isn't guessing correctly about AI content in writing. The problem is false positives. That's what puts it in the same category is predictive policing scam software. And fortunetelling.
It has nothing to do with predictive policing. I don't understand this example, it has nothing to do with detecting intent. You're looking for evidence of a past misdeed.
False positive and false negative rates are non-zero, as with almost anything, but the tools are pretty good. I encourage you to give them a try. Pangram is a good state-of-the-art choice and you can try it for free. They also publish evals and other data about their approach.
> but the tools are pretty good. I encourage you to give them a try.
I have given them a try and can confirm the exact opposite. Plenty of others have given them tries and have confirmed the exact opposite.
Regardless, the “better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang” principle applies here.
No it doesn't.
This is armchair philosophy when pragmatism and problem solving serve better.
Fundamentals - Teaching is expensive, and we don't have enough teachers.
Verifying if someone has the skills is difficult.
Given the shortage of teachers, and the difficulty of verification, we ways to bridge the gap.
The first step is always going to be to spend more on education, especially in underserved areas.
The new options we have with LLMs is to increase the rate of testing, and test out the benefits of low stakes testing at scale.
1 reply →