Hacker News Reader

The burden of proof required for accusing someone of academic misconduct should surely be different than accusing someone of AI slop?

View on HN

It's not about that it's that I'm not sure those tests beat random guesses (or don't beat them by much)

"Random guesses" is probably underselling the capabilities too much, given their internal tests claim 0.0041% false positive rate. Obviously their tests might be biased and designed to make them look maximally good, but at the same time it's more implausible to claim they do no better at random guesses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangram_(AI_detector)

So I just tested it today. Told GPT 5.6 Sol (chat interface) to write a four paragraph story about frogs, then I told it twice to rephrase it and change all the names. Pasted it into Quillbot (first non-ad result on Google for ai detector). 84% AI.

Hm, have these things gotten better?

Back to ChatGPT: "Make it sound less LLM-y". 0% AI. 100% human-written.

Come on!

It does indeed detect my own writing and any human writing I have on hand as human written, which is nice, so maybe they fixed that in the past year. But it still feels quite unserious.

There's been a ton of news stories of people claiming otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com