Earlier this year, WIRED asked AI detection startup Pangram Labs to analyze Medium. It took a sampling of 274,466 recent posts over a six week period and estimated that over 47 percent were likely AI-generated. “This is a couple orders of magnitude more than what I see on the rest of the internet,” says Pangram CEO Max Spero. (The company’s analysis of one day of global news sites this summer found 7 percent as likely AI-generated.)
That is why I liked the comparison with articles from 2018. Then you have comparable texts in the same format and can more easily figure out differences in your analysis.
If true, a jump from 3% to 40% is significant to say the least.
@Black616Angel numbers in the article are 7% for the pre-2018 corpus, and 47% for the post-2018 corpus. That is from less than 1 in 10 to almost 1 in 2, or a coin toss…
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
How well does the “AI detection startup’s” product work? This is a big unsolved problem but I’d be hecka skeptical.
It doesn’t, and never will
That’s because of bots like you. (I kid to make a point.)
That’s exactly what a bot would say, to stay undetected.
That is why I liked the comparison with articles from 2018. Then you have comparable texts in the same format and can more easily figure out differences in your analysis.
If true, a jump from 3% to 40% is significant to say the least.
@Black616Angel numbers in the article are 7% for the pre-2018 corpus, and 47% for the post-2018 corpus. That is from less than 1 in 10 to almost 1 in 2, or a coin toss…
My numbers were from the Originality AI part.
@Black616Angel yes, I’ve realized that and corrected my post while you responded 😉
Maybe the blurb was AI-generated? 🤦🏻♂️