I did use 60% witchcraft, but they didn’t notice since they’re too busy looking for AI these days.
It’s like being accused of aimboting in a competitive shooter. I just take it as a compliment.
I joined a counterstrike server for newbs to practice with bots. Apparently people thought I was a bot because I sucked so badly.
Wallhacking by adding extra walls. Aimbotting to ensure a miss. I like it.
Pry those em dashes from my cold, dead hands, Louise.
The clankers will never sway me from my em dashes, my oxford commas, and my semicolons; they are my precious.
She’s possessed by a daemon!
Emagine being in an academic filed, and AI being trained off your research papers, so it has the same writing style as you. Give me my em dashes back.
It’s really just that AI detectors are snake oil
They’re not. GPTZero has false positive rate under 1% for creative writing. More to the point, if you’re writing so poorly and robotically that it gets detected as AI, you deserve it.
someone disagrees with you on the internet? just lie! they arent going to check anyway and everyone believes lies on the internet.
That’s a bold claim with no proof.
Worst performance for GPTZero is technical medical papers with a 10% false positive rate. Here’s the study from S. Korea.
Scientific scholarly writing: <4% false positive.
Creative writing is orders of magnitude easier to detect. The biggest problem for AI writing detection tools is the use of translation — so generating text, translating it into another language, and translating it back — but this ends up as a false-negative issue. False positives are very rare.
More importantly, we don’t need GPTZero to detect AI writing because professionals can identify it on sight. Add context clues (students are dumb) and suddenly it’s trivial.
EDIT: I need you to understand that college students are terrible writers. In all my decades and literally thousands of students, I’ve met maybe three people under the age of 25 whose writing was better than proficient, and I work with students whose SAT scores are over 1550. The idea I’m going to mistake your writing for AI (which sounds horrible and robotic, btw) because of your skill is simply unfathomable.
Thank you for linking me to that study! Unfortunately google is a piece of shit and they’re calling me a bot and refusing to talk to me even though I’m on a standard residential internet connection. Could you tell me the title/authors so I can look for it elsewhere?
I’m particularly interested in seeing what the actual false positive rates are beyond a colloquial “1%”. Because 1% is, in the context of accusing academic cheating, absolutely unacceptable dog shit.
Take a basic example intro class with 350 students, with only two tests per semester. With “only” a 1% false positive rates you will be destroying the lives of more than a dozen innocent kids every school year. And thats only for one class, students are taking many classes per semester.
Well, an important detail is that, as your professor I would already know you cheated beyond a reasonable doubt. The only reason to use such a tool is to make it harder to deny.
Imagine an Ivy League classroom of 100 students, as you said. First of all, they all suck at writing in their own quirky ways. By contrast, AI has no rhythm, clumsiness, or voice. It writes like a corporation. If you’re being accused of using AI, that’s not a compliment.
Anyways, here’s another thing about these studies. Counterintuitively, a 1% false positive for a tool like GPTZero doesn’t mean that if I feed it 100 human essays from my creative writing class it’ll get one of them wrong.
It’s more like if there are 100 “types” of creative writing, 1 of them would be wrong consistently and the other 99 almost never. For these tools, there are types of writing they can’t ever figure out, like blind spots (probably from lack of data). A college essay is not going to be such a blind spot.
Here’s a known blind spot: if you have two humans collaborating on a paper, GPTZero will fail. So one person writes, the other extensively re-writes — like a translation. You end up with an inauthentic mess that throws up false positives.
If you’re looking for studies, go to Google scholar and type “GPTZero accuracy specificity” or something make sure you set it to 2025 or later, since GPTZero is rapidly improving. Most studies don’t target creative writing though, because like I said it basically doesn’t get those wrong and scientific articles are more difficult.
I’m glad I never had you as a professor, your overconfident arrogance is terrifying.
I’m an expert in my field. Do you know what specialization looks like? If you spent 70% of your waking life reading you’d be pretty fucking confident about reading as well. Literacy, how terrifying.
Props for responding constructively.
The false positive rate is pretty low, but a false negative of 35% is pretty concerning in terms of whether they’re fit for purpose. Like it’ll rarely misclassify human writing as AI generated, but it’s somewhat closer to a coin flip in correctly identifying AI generated language. It’s a signal, but I imagine it’s a poor substitute for the judgement of a person who has spent time teaching teenagers / young adults to write.
Which to the original point isn’t totally snake oil, but it’s maybe not a great tool for the professionals who it’s targeting.
The false negative rate for creative writing is exceedingly low as well, sub 1%. False negatives aren’t the critique of this meme, and the examples I gave for GPTZero were worst case scenarios for very specific types of technical writing.
You posted this image in response to a statement saying that AI detectors are snake oil:
They may have hated Jesus because he told them the truth, it’s possible.
OR – and you can just hear me out here – they may have hated Jesus because he talked shit and then added irrelevant religious propaganda to falsely insert an authority figure that would preclude and/or divert righteous disagreement with what he was claiming.
I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t there. Neither were you, when it comes down to it.
I don’t know whether you posted that off-topic religious mess in any kind of sincerity, but when anyone posts anything that looks like it came out of a Chick tract I instantly and forever assume that they are Mike Lindell the My Pillow guy.
Just so you know. This type of religious content may not be working for you in the manner in which you intended.
It’s literally from a Chick Tract. It’s an ancient meme… circulating for the past 10 years or so.
Whether the person posting it is right or wrong, it’s not really an endorsement of religion. It’s like “scapegoat”, or “omg”.
I appreciate the explanation but it didn’t read that way, and to me it still doesn’t. All the examples in the link you gave use that image as a template and not the meme itself. In the meme, in the white space just to the left of Mary with a beard hollering Shut up! someone writes in a second speech bubble. This not only takes it into meme territory, but well out of Chick tract territory.
OP didn’t bother. Also, OP has now edited out the rest of his original comment, which featured a second image of a table of some kind. This is what it looked like when I responded to it:
So I’m just gonna stay with my original Mike Lindell the My Pillow guy estimation, if only because I can still say it hasn’t failed me yet. But thanks for the effort: I will endeavor to retain the education you have labored to provide. 👍
Just wanted to chime in as a reader. This Reddit-style of talking down to others unfortunately is what makes me disagree with those I’d normally agree with. How it’s delivered matters at least as much as the message’s content.
Thanks for the sermon.
I don’t have to worry about it because of my numerous tpyos
Well, they’re now training AI on reddit, so…
I think they intentionally added “natural” typos to AI text ages ago so it’s harder to spot?
The more rules,the more AI the text becomes. So I expect a scientific text with very rigit rules in how to write is practically indistinguishable from an AI text, if written good. So tue expected value is 50% AI or human, if the text is well written. Either the AI got less rules (making it more AI) or humans make mistakes. Either way, a perfectly written text will land at 50% chance.
Your writing reflects a higher than normal degree of literacy. Ergo, AI use detected.
This is why I had to quit school.
That, or my man really loves a bullet point and an emdash.
I am in this picture and i dont like itI love using emdashes in my papers, but I stopped because of AI
Don’t let LLMs take your em dashes; flattening your language to the lowest common denominator to avoid doing anything too distinctive less you be accused of non-authorship… that’s a real harm to you and your reader. If you know how to use them, and enjoy using them, use them fearlessly.
It’s fine, I use em dashes all the time in papers. If you do it correctly—to add more information or commentary to your overall point—instead of at random and without proper syntax you’re not going to get accused.
Yep, it’s a compliment. Sadly.
It’s actually the opposite. AI writing sounds like corpo-speak. It’s soulless, ugly, and extremely obvious.
I’ve spent about 30,000 hours reading in my life. If you think I can’t tell you’re using a token predictor for your “essay,” you’re fucking insane.
As someone who has retired from the practice of law and billed clients more than 30,000 hours for legal research over the years, I can assure you that soulless corpo-speech has been around far longer than AI and used to be created organically by depressed human drones and sociopaths. Where do you think the AIs learned to write that way?
The old witchcraft trial.
If the paper is so badly written that it fails then it will be declared AI-free. (If she drowns then she wasn’t a witch)
There are ways of telling whether she is an AI.
What are AIs mode out of?
Silicon!
What else is made out of silicon?
Breast implants!
So logically if she weighs the same as a breast implant…
I was gonna say they’re: “Spelled differently (true) and are distinct, unrelated materials (false!)”. So I ended up correcting myself.
Silicone is literally made from silicon. Manufacturing starts with silica (SiO₂, found in sand/quartz), which is reduced to elemental silicon, then reacted with methyl chloride to form methylchlorosilanes, which are then polymerized into silicone.
The name “silicone” was actually coined in 1901 by English chemist Frederick Kipling, who thought the compounds R₂SiO resembled ketones (hence “-one” suffix) — the naming turns out to be a bit of a misnomer chemically, but it stuck.
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
Seeing artists and animators who have been doing their thing long before AI getting demonitized or deleted with accusations of using AI to generate their work is really starting to piss me the fuck off.
At a art exhibit, this poor artist with over 20 years of work had to put a “Not AI” sticker. He was sick of all the dick heads.
“I follow grammatical rules, yes”-ass rating.
It’s like when I used to play Black ops and battlefield 3, eventually because it wad the summer after I graduated, I basically played all day.
Eventually I was getting accused of using hacks for about 25% of my games.
The kicker: I wasn’t particularly good based on the scoreboard, but after you kill the same guy 3 times through a wall because you can hear his footsteps with your headset and just spray through the wall, he gets suspicious (and probably doesn’t play nearly as much)
I actually was in the top 50 worldwide for MW3 for pistol kills for awhile because for about 2 months all I did in that game was dual wield pistols, sprint after people in games that are more close quarters and go to town on my triggers.
I always liked being accused of hacking, because it made me feel like I wasn’t garbage at the games.
Now I’d probably get accused of being a default bot lmao
Nobody who reads or writes for a living thinks AI slop sounds good. It has a hideous corpo-speak prosody that’s like nails on a chalkboard to professionals.
People think that because they can’t tell it’s not written by a human, someone who has read literally tens of thousands of essays (not to mention millions of fucking book pages) can’t tell you used a token generator.
Absolutely fucking bonkers.
Students who use AI are like little kids standing on each others shoulders in a trench coat and trying to order alcohol.
