Chatbots are very popular right now, and ChatGPT is one of the best ones. But because AI’s reactions are so solid and human-like, academics, teachers, and editors are all having to deal with more and more plagiarism and cheating than AI does. Your old tools for finding copying might need help to tell the difference between real and fake work.
This piece talks about the scary side of AI chatbots, looks at some online tools that can find plagiarism, and talks about how bad things have gotten.
Exploring Detection Solutions for AI-Generated Content
ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022 popularized chatbots. It helped amateurs and pros produce clear articles and solve text-based math problems. Students love AI-generated content because it looks like actual writing to novices. Teachers hate it.
AI writing tools’ ability to use natural language and grammar to generate personalized content from databases is a crucial downside. Now, the struggle against AI-based cheating begins. I found these free options.
OpenAI developed GPT-2 Output Detector to demonstrate its chatbot text detection bot. Output Detector instantly detects whether a person has entered text.
Scaled Content and Writer AI Content Detector has clean UIs. Add a URL to scan (writers only) or manually add text. Percentage scores imply human-generated content likelihood.
Streamlit hosts Princeton University student Edward Zen’s homemade beta tool, GPTZero. AI-assisted plagiarism (“plagiarism” model) yields diverse results. GPTZero assesses confusion and burstiness. Perplexity assesses sentence-specific randomness, while burstiness measures text-wide. Machine-written text is more likely to have lower scores for both measures.
The MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and Harvard Natural Language Processing Group’s Giant Language Model Test Room (GLTR) were fun. Unlike GPTZero, the findings are not labelled “human” or “bot”. Since bots rarely choose startling terms, GLTR uses bots to identify bot-written content. A colour-coded histogram compares AI-generated with human-generated text. More surprising wording suggests human origin.
Assessing AI Recognition Tools: Evaluating Text Authenticity
Testing Human-Like Responses: Pre-Assembled PC Inquiry
- Description of the initial test scenario: querying about the drawbacks of purchasing pre-assembled PCs.
- Analysis of the tools’ performance in differentiating between human and AI-generated responses.
- Comparison of assessments provided by Writer AI Content Tester, GPT-based tester, and GLTR.
Refining the Evaluation: Study Outline Request
- Introducing the second test scenario: requesting an outline of a study from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology on fog prevention using gold particles.
- Examination of the tools’ improved ability to identify AI-generated content in this context.
- Continued assessment of Writer AI Content Tester, GPT-based tester, and GLTR, highlighting improvements and persistent challenges.
Closing
Each search shows that online copying tools could be better. These apps can determine when someone is writing using AI for more complex replies or pieces of writing, like my second inquiry, but not for simple ones. I wouldn’t call it reliable. These detecting technologies may misidentify essays and articles as ChatGPT-generated. This is an issue for teachers and authors trying to catch cheats.
Developers constantly increase precision and erroneous positives. They also prepare for the release of GPT-3, which offers a better dataset and more advanced characteristics than GPT-2 (on which ChatGPT is trained).
To identify AI-created content, editors and teachers will need one or more of these AI detectors, common sense, and human understanding. Bots like Chatsonic, ChatGPT, Notion, and YouChat should not be used to pass off “work” as accurate. The use of bot-generated content (which uses database sources) is still plagiarism.
