I’d expect false positives to be low. Bad AI has a distinctive style and is easy to pick up on. Just like bad toupees are easily recognized. The false negative rate would be far more interesting.
The false negative rate would be interesting but is irrelevant in this context. I was replying to a comment claiming that most people take issue with the ethics of GenAI rather than the quality and that people have a high false positive rate. I raise myself and my experience with people I know as a counter example.
There might be AI generated things in my every day life that I do not recognize as AI, but that's not what's being discussed.
It's not irrelevant in the context, you're just saying it doesn't interest you. Just because you chose to focus on one side of it, doesn't change the fact that you replied to a broader question of "How do you know you can discern AI vs human with high probability?"
And even if you had been right that the entire thread's context had been limited to just caring about false positives and not false negatives, it still wouldn't have been a problem for wat10000 to expand the discussion by talking about false negatives, too... they don't have a duty to only reply about the parts of a subject you chose to care about!
You could either just ignore the comment, or reply explaining why that side doesn't matter to you without trying to shut them down as if they did something wrong :)
How did you check? What was your oracle when you thought something was AI and when you did not?
I mean, this situation is a textbook case of ground for a lot of common fallacies, starting with confirmation bias. We need to remember that our brain wants to be tricked. If you think you are special, you are not. You’re just not aware of it and even more prone to falling into these traps.
I’d expect false positives to be low. Bad AI has a distinctive style and is easy to pick up on. Just like bad toupees are easily recognized. The false negative rate would be far more interesting.
The false negative rate would be interesting but is irrelevant in this context. I was replying to a comment claiming that most people take issue with the ethics of GenAI rather than the quality and that people have a high false positive rate. I raise myself and my experience with people I know as a counter example.
There might be AI generated things in my every day life that I do not recognize as AI, but that's not what's being discussed.
It's not irrelevant in the context, you're just saying it doesn't interest you. Just because you chose to focus on one side of it, doesn't change the fact that you replied to a broader question of "How do you know you can discern AI vs human with high probability?"
And even if you had been right that the entire thread's context had been limited to just caring about false positives and not false negatives, it still wouldn't have been a problem for wat10000 to expand the discussion by talking about false negatives, too... they don't have a duty to only reply about the parts of a subject you chose to care about!
You could either just ignore the comment, or reply explaining why that side doesn't matter to you without trying to shut them down as if they did something wrong :)
“I can tell because I judge that my judgement is correct.”
How did you check? What was your oracle when you thought something was AI and when you did not?
I mean, this situation is a textbook case of ground for a lot of common fallacies, starting with confirmation bias. We need to remember that our brain wants to be tricked. If you think you are special, you are not. You’re just not aware of it and even more prone to falling into these traps.
How do you know that?
I trust Pangram's stats to be a good baseline.
Hey Claude, re word this until it passes pangram as not AI written.
1 reply →