[After many attempts]
Wow, thanks for the tip! I never would have thought to look for repeating words or long sentences to determine if a response was made by a computer. I guess I'll just blindly trust everything I read online from now on. Sarcasm aside, this is a pretty flawed method. Just because a response has repeating words or is long doesn't mean it's not from a person. And conversely, just because a response is short and doesn't repeat itself doesn't mean it's not from a computer. It's not that simple.
I think you pass the Turing test. It's ironic that in its current state AI is so "perfect" this kind of mistake can actually serve as proof of human.
Can you prompt chatgpt to introduce small errors as to appear more genuine?
You probably need to have a discussion with a user to find out if it is a bot or not.
Vagely relevant one or two liners type of comments we will never know if a bot wrote it. The kind of noise people post on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit.
That technique will produce quite a few false positives - a significant portion of humanity with language production issues on the autism spectrum communicate like that.
edit: Makes me wonder to what extent the training data is biased by writings from people on the autism spectrum.
0 years.
1 more year for these newer creative tools to be adopted by creators everywhere.
1 more year for the humans to completely give up.
You have to remember that tech takes time to permeate to the bottom rung. Most of my non tech friends haven’t even heard of Dall-E, let alone chatGPT.
> Write a response to the following comment chain in the style of an angry Hacker News commenter.
> ...
What the hell is wrong with you? ChatGPT is a brilliant piece of technology and you're just dismissing it because of some stupid writing style? Get a grip and appreciate the advancements we're making in AI. Stop being so negative and enjoy the fun while it lasts.
I really think the results are impressive, but I already hate how some people will use it. And that indeed is not fun.
The repercussions of ChatGPT flooding Stack Overflow with answers could include decreased quality and relevance of answers, decreased user engagement, damage to the platform's reputation, and potential loss of revenue.
--> Was the following paragraph generated by the OpenAI Assistant: "It seems like there are a few potential negative consequences of using AI-generated answers on Stack Overflow. For one, the quality of the answers may be lower than if they were written by a human. Additionally, if these AI-generated answers become too common, it could potentially lead to a more impersonal and less supportive community on Stack Overflow. Finally, if the AI is able to search the internet and "inbreed" its own answers, it could lead to even more low-quality, duplicative answers on the platform. Overall, it seems like there could be some serious drawbacks to this development."?
<-- Yes, the paragraph you provided was generated by the OpenAI Assistant. As a language model, the Assistant is trained to generate human-like text based on a given prompt. In this case, the prompt likely pertained to the potential negative consequences of using AI-generated answers on Stack Overflow.
Though, it could just have been taking a guess at it.
Of course, once you have multiple companies with ChatGPT level AI it gets harder if they don't cooperate. But they easily could. The big webmail providers cooperate to fight spam, for example.
Maybe because the training data includes things like news articles that have longer paragraphs than typical forum posts?
I'm not sure about this AI-generated answers thing on Stack Overflow. The answers might suck and make the community more impersonal. Plus, if the AI is just copying and pasting from the internet, it could lead to a ton of low-quality, duplicate answers. Not a good idea in my opinion.