Last I counted there were 50+ AI text detectors, not including the humanizers that also sell AI detection (thank you hypocrisy). What's even more surprising is the AI built meters and percentage scores they provide when you enter a text. A load of bollocks if you ask me. Working on AI linguistics if there is something you learn, anything is possible with the right technique and framework. I'm not sure what is more concerning the display of such banality or the actual belief in them, nonetheless, the challenge must be addressed.There are mostly 2 types of value systems on this, the first is that AI is supreme and will be able to replace human output (or already has) and the second, that AI can never be human. Both are true, to an extent. AI could never be human because what it means to be human is so loosely defined, that there will always be an argument to prove the point for the point's sake. In this context, AI can surely write like humans - and it is mostly humans guiding it in getting there. The point is not whether the writing is human or AI, which can never be certain. It's the grey area of doubt that you can find clues on, for further investigation or reason.The point of this note is to warn you against looking at symbolic meters and percentage scores. Here's a quick test you can do to evaluate a score (we do this too), copy 200 words from an AI model and test it. Note the percentage, then replace 2 meaningful words at random and note the percentage difference. If 2 words causes a big shift, it's highly sensitive - you can infer that it would not hold up against real world testing. If it doesn't shift much, randomly shuffle the sentences and retry - if it shifts, you have your answer. The reasoning is that if it is truly accurate measure of writing as is, it would give consistent % scores on the same text, no matter how it's sliced. If it's purely for show, it will give wildly different outcomes. Do not base your outcome on running the same text multiple times without changing it, as most detectors will probably use a cached result rather than re-evaluate - lest it makes them look unreliable. As anyone who works with data will tell you, there will always be outliers.In short, treat detector results as flags and do get carried away by a false sense of UI assurance. Interfaces and widgets look flashy, look underneath. AI can most certainly write like humans (especially when guided by them), it would be foolish to think otherwise.Taken from https://t9xt.com/writings/why-it-is-foolish-to-think-ai-can-t-write-like-humans Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50245017 Points: 2

Comments: 0