Agree. I was accused twice of plagiarism by professors in college. Needless to say there was zero plagiarism involved. In both cases I wrote code that they didn't think it was likely that an Nth year college student would know how to write. In both cases it didn't go anywhere. One because they talked to me about the work and it was clear I knew my stuff, the second because the professor was certain I had cheated somehow but couldn't prove anything despite his attempts to find the code he insisted I must have found online. I'd say the existing process is already higher than 1/10000 false positive!

>> Do you really think professors flag plagiarism only when it's cut and dry?

The problem with computer systems flagging things is they are taken as truth.

Another comment on another post perfectly states this human behavior: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39118716

>Wouldn't it need additional data, such as actual proof, to become an allegation or even a claim or charge?

Yes but that hasn't stopped people before.

Judging by the number of people who seem to blindly trust what ChatGPT says, yes it’s bad.

A false positive rate of 1/10000 would be almost the worst case in fact: truthy enough that people believe that it works, while still creating a vast absolute number of false positives.

>> Wouldn't it need additional data, such as actual proof, to become an allegation or even a claim or charge?

What the computer surfaces as an accusation becomes fact by the users of the computer.

Even when the consequences are serious, this happens, an example from yesterday: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-says-ai-facial-reco...

Why should we assume this would go any differently when the consequences are not as serious?