HN Explorer

26 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 14.5 ms ] thread
my002
People often shit on AI detectors but Pangram's text AI detection has been very good, IME. Not perfect, but good enough to be useful in most circumstances.
jszymborski
My trouble with Pangram is that the calibration is totally off. It can tell you if there is a drop or an ocean of AI in the text you submit. The "X% of AI" message doesn't really mean much. You can test this yourself: Slowly add generated text to a human write paragraph and you'll see it hit "100% AI" quite quickly.
Matticus_Rex
It analyzes in segments, and the percentage is of the segments, not of the words.
Alpha3031
I don't really know why you would expect a "X% chance of containing AI" number to rise slowly or smoothly alongside the percentage of text that has a 100% chance of containing AI.
xnx
I'm very skeptical of AI detection and watermarking for text (especially short passages), but AI detection for images and videos seems much more plausible (for now at least).

I would love if Meta licensed this tech to use for everything on Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp. Including ads!

mediaman
Why are you so skeptical of text detection?

Do you believe it generally doesn't work or do you believe that if you work at it you can evade them and therefore there's no point to it?

JacobAsmuth
You should look at the data. Look at the actual measurements on the accuracy of Pangram's V4 detection model. Try to fool it. It's not easy at all.
zeroonetwothree
It’s often inaccurate with short text. For example it has flagged text I wrote by hand with no AI input or editing.

But I agree it’s good for longer text of 1000+ words.

74948494i4
What’s the use case for these things?
tantalor
A few likely use cases,

1. Social media moderation. You want to limit the proliferation of this stuff because it annoys users.

2. Trades where authenticity matters, like journalism, law, education. You have to weed out the crap and people will try to deceive you.

alkonaut
Can’t these detectors be used in the training loop of models?
JacobAsmuth
People have tried it, it doesn't work.
bobajeff
Which people? I'm no AI researcher but I believe basically all GANs employ a discriminator which basically to me it sounds like this is.
dwohnitmok
I don't know about Pangram's viability as a discriminator but I can tell you as someone who has recreationally trained GANs that they're really really finicky to train and training fails in all sorts of inscrutable ways. It wouldn't surprise me if even though in theory you could do a GAN-style form of training with Pangram, in practice it might actually be very difficult.
XTXinverseXTY
In theory yes, but likely not economical for the slop arbitrageur
hex4def6
At least on gemini generated images vs real ones, it works surprisingly well.

Taking a photo of an AI generated image on my grubby laptop screen with my phone, moire and all, still got detected. So the signal it's using is pretty robust.

leothetechguy
Awesome research like this restores my faith in humanity.
sean_pedersen
An ill advised undertaking IMO: Any attempt to build AI generated content detection systems is flawed, since the outputs of such a system may be used to train an even better fake data generator. This leads to an equilibrium state of digital uncertainty: nothing in the digital realm can be deemed as real anymore - only as digital.
zeroonetwothree
How is that a downside exactly? If we can’t tell then we are no worse off.
sean_pedersen
It will create false trust in their score - giving people a false sense of certainty.
karahime
Adding to this, the most motivated actors to get around it or find an edge case, e.g. in politics, will use it to say "Look, of course the scene depicted in this compromising image actually happened, the detector said so".
Trung0246
Interesting, it detected NovelAI stuff now. Looks like one can easily defeat it by having pixel-level modifications to make AI images to have characteristics of digital brush strokes and reducing "noise" in output. At least in my case for anime stuff.