Scientists claim >99 percent identification rate of ChatGPT content

Academics have apparently trained a machine learning algorithm to detect scientific papers generated by ChatGPT and claim the software has over 99 percent accuracy.

Generative AI models have dramatically improved at mimicking human writing over a short period of time, making it difficult for people to tell whether text was produced by a machine or human. Teachers and lecturers have raised concerns that students using the tools are committing plagiarism, or apparently cheating using machine-generated code.

Software designed to detect AI-generated text, however, is often unreliable. Experts have warned against using these tools to assess work.

A team of researchers led by the University of Kansas thought it would be useful to develop a way to detect AI-generated science writing - specifically written in the style of research papers typically accepted and published by academic journals.

"Right now, there are some pretty glaring problems with AI writing," said Heather Desaire, first author of a paper published in the journal Cell Reports Physical Science, and a chemistry professor at the University of Kansas, in a statement. "One of the biggest problems is that it assembles text from many sources and there isn't any kind of accuracy check - it's kind of like the game Two Truths and a Lie."

Desaire and her colleagues compiled datasets to train and test an algorithm to classify papers written by scientists and by ChatGPT. They selected 64 "perspectives" articles - a specific style of article published in science journals - representing a diverse range of topics from biology to physics, and prompted ChatGPT to generate paragraphs describing the same research to create 128 fake articles. A total of 1,276 paragraphs were produced by AI and used to train the classifier.

Next, the team compiled two more datasets, each containing 30 real perspectives articles and 60 ChatGPT-written papers, totaling 1,210 paragraphs to test the algorithm.

Initial experiments reported the classifier was able to discern between real science writing from humans and AI-generated papers 100 percent of the time. Accuracy at the individual paragraph level, however, dropped slightly - to 92 percent, it's claimed.

They believe their classifier is effective, because it homes in on a range of stylistic differences between human and AI writing. Scientists are more likely to have a richer vocabulary and write longer paragraphs containing more diverse words than machines. They also use punctuation like question marks, brackets, semicolons more frequently than ChatGPT, except for speech marks used for quotations.

ChatGPT is also less precise, and doesn't provide specific information about figures or other scientist names compared to humans. Real science papers also use more equivocal language - like "however", "but", "although" as well as "this" and "because".

The results, however, should be taken with a grain of salt. It's not clear how robust the algorithm is against studies that have been lightly edited by humans despite being written mostly by ChatGPT, or against real papers from other scientific journals.

"Since the key goal of this work was a proof-of-concept study, the scope of the work was limited, and follow-up studies are needed to determine the extent of this approach's applicability," the researchers wrote in their paper. "For example, the size of the test set (180 documents, ∼1,200 paragraphs) is small, and a larger test set would more clearly define the accuracy of the method on this category of writing examples."

The Register has asked Desaire for comment. ®

About Us
Website HardCracked provides softwares, patches, cracks and keygens. If you have software or keygens to share, feel free to submit it to us here. Also you may contact us if you have software that needs to be removed from our website. Thanks for use our service!
IT News
Sep 29
UTM: An Apple hypervisor with some unique extra abilities

Friday FOSS Fest Fancy running Windows, Linux and Classic MacOS on your modern x86-64 or Arm64 Mac? Walk this way

Sep 29
Bringing AI to reality

Sponsored Feature How DeepBrain made the most of Lenovo's AI Innovators Program

Sep 29
CNCF's chief techie talks WebAssembly, AI and licenses

Interview Or how one pesky press release ruined a vacation

Sep 29
Infosys launches aviation cloud it claims can halve lost luggage

Also optimises routes and tames crowds, but can't stop that person who just reclined into your knees

Sep 29
Red Hat bins Bugzilla for RHEL issue tracking, jumps on Jira

Just in time to get Atlassian's latest cross-team collab bits

Sep 29
Medium asks AI bot crawlers: Please, please don't scrape bloggers' musings

OpenAI might respect robots.txt but dunno about the others

Sep 29