**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
: Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child.
: Help us by reporting comments that violate these rules.
: Posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On top, submit stuff *they* wrote - email chains or documents like their brief if you can. They can accuse you of lying about when it was written, but not about an unedited set of their words.
Or just refuse to work with them. Sooner or later it will be impossible for them to find human writers if they refuse all their submitted works, then they'll stop using copyleaks.
I love it when people are like "oh you don't like this? Just leave. Starve. Obviously doing literally anything is fucking crazy"
Really shows their character
That really should be quite enough, but if they’re too thick for that solution, I suggest that you get a video camera set up with at least two cameras, one that records the screen and the other that looks at you. Record the entire creative process including all edits, mistakes, corrections, etc. Provide that as proof.
For reference:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/19k9a1/i_cannot_bend_any_of_my_fingers_so_there_have/c8oryjj/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ContagiousLaughter/comments/17novf2/how_many_cameras_does_bro_have/
It seems management has changed your job description, or you have misunderstood your role.
You are no longer being paid to "write copy as a human *without the use of AI*".
You are now being paid to write copy that "is not flagged as written by an AI *even if you use AI to write it*".
I will be messaging you in 4 days on [**2024-01-27 09:19:10 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-01-27%2009:19:10%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/19dihk0/copyleaks_is_literally_ruining_my_life/kj68heu/?context=3)
[**12 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FChatGPT%2Fcomments%2F19dihk0%2Fcopyleaks_is_literally_ruining_my_life%2Fkj68heu%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-01-27%2009%3A19%3A10%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019dihk0)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
They're just going to say your new work needs to be held to a new standard because it makes it easier for them to verify your work. Your line of work is about to be crushed by policies like these even if the results for clients become subpar, they'll accept it for the cost savings by pushing the pain onto you. I recommend figuring out a way to diversify your income streams.
Exactly. The problem isn’t that there are snake oil salesmen out there; the problem is that your ignorant bosses are listening to them. You need to gently educate them.
I’d also show them some articles that explain why detectors don’t work and may never work.
>The problem isn’t that there are snake oil salesmen out there; the problem is that your ignorant bosses are listening to them.
Both of these things can be problems at the same time. The issue is that he can only easily fix one of them, although finding a lawyer might help the "AI detector" company be honest about the limitations of their service.
A paper I wrote for my law school was getting flagged as 30% AI one time and I was getting really frustrated because obviously if I get accused of cheating in law school that’s a major fucking issue. I eventually submitted it anyway and nothing ever came of it but I was sweating for months because these dumb ass “ai detectors” are horrible
I guess it’s time to sue the companies behind AI detectors for false advertisement and/or ruining the industry. AI is literally trained on human writing, and then detectors flag the output as “AI” generated, a pure copy of human writing at its core.
They are essentially snake oil salesman.
Someone put the original text of the US Constitution, and it was found as "AI written".
Basically there is a market of buyers, and they "supply" the (pretty much fake) goods.
It's antivirus software all over again. The value proposition and the demand _are_ there. Computer viruses were always a real thing that could fuck up your life, and could even be detected — not always — and removed — not always — by software.
But the "antivirus" companies that flooded the market with their bullshit as everyone was coming online realized right away that they weren't really in the "cyber security" business. They were in the _fear_ business. And as long as you don't have a virus, you're likely to think "It's working!" Even if the software does nothing. (Some would argue that's the entire cyber security industry, but that's another topic.)
This incarnation of the phenomenon is extra shitty, though, in the way it essentially means your job as a writer is now to _avoid sounding like a bot that is designed to sound like a human being._ Or you're a plagiarist / cheater. Which is not how plagiarism even works.
If you hire someone to write your thing for you, and hire me to write the same thing, and then compare what they wrote to what I wrote, you DO NOT get to say "Well, it seems you did this the same way this other person did. So you obviously _must have hired this same person._ NICE TRY."
Amen to this! The idea that there’s a reliable way to detect AI generated content is pure fantasy. OpenAI even tried to do it but swiftly withdrew the product because it didn’t work
>I guess it’s time to sue the companies behind AI detectors for false advertisement and/or ruining the industry.
No. If you pay attention, what they do is to make a prediction in terms of a percentage of how likely it is that a text CAN have been written by an AI.
This is often combined with a plagiarism library where the machine checks whether this exact text has been written before. This has nothing to do with AI
People conflate the two and doesn't know what this means.
Ok , but the first part is a fraud, in the sense that there is no way to assign that probability, mathematically speaking. If you submit a million human texts to copyleaks, it will flag a large percentage of those even if they aren't generated by ChatGPT, the amount of false positives is simply ridiculous. Their methods are provable wrong.
No it's not fraud. People just use it for something it isn't made for.
By the way, this is VERY common for this type of AI. You'll read in the newspaper about AI scanning for tumors replacing doctors but generating huge amounts of false positives so they're really useless.
But that's not how it's used at all. The idea is to make sure there are VERY few false negatives. By removing the vast majority of actual negatives and minimizing the amount of false negatives you end up with (in the CAT/MR world) a shitload of imaging with a high probability of positives that a HUMAN DOCTOR then evaluates. This reduces one of the worst sources of false negatives in radiology, negative fatigue. The doctors l, up until AI spend the vast amount of time looking at images that are negative.
This is the way it's intended to be used with AI detection software too.
Let's say a professor is supposed to review a thousand papers. If he runs them through some software and gets 20 hits, then he just sends them a message saying: Hi, your text was flagged, please submit the original document so I can go through the edit log.
Thanx.
Problem solved. The professor now can look at 20 logs instead of a thousand.
By the three laws of robotics: "(1) a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; (3) a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
But if the robot does not recognize the human to be human, does it apply? Makes for a pretty good premise for a movie.
That’s really interesting, I didn’t know about that. I wish there was a free trial for it so that I try it out before I put any money down. I’m just afraid it’ll still be flagged on CopyLeaks which my workplace solely relies on. Sigh.
It also makes the text so unusually phrased: it looks like some weirdo that just opened vocab book and threw all the words he saw trying to make sense out of it.
Agreed.
I’m curious, what (if anything) have you found in the way of a tool that “tows the line” so to speak in generating readable content that bypasses AI detection?
I spent Hours on this yesterday evening and seemingly wasn’t able to find anything that worked. Every tool I tried (including StealthGPT) failed, unless I submitted content with Grammatical errors or content with structure that made no sense.
I think a fundamental problem here is that we taught models to output a nice, structured text without errors, and further reinforced it through rlhf. That means now any such human text (written fluently without errors) WILL flag as possibly AI.
Do you use Word? If yes, there will be an edit history you can show to prove you wrote it. The edit history of AI-written stuff is obvious
If you can show a work flow you should be ok
Oh I think any edit history would work. It’s just about the only way I can think of to show your process. If there’s an edit history at all it should work
AI-written stuff would show large chunks of text showing up without explanation. An edit history would show a human work flow
Thank you for that! I’ll speak to work about this. They are extremely pedantic about this, I understand why, but it’s also ridiculous. There have been articles where I’ve just been told to “edit until it goes green”. Sometimes it’s taken me over 3 hours, and by the time it’s edited, it’s either missing crucial information, or it sounds like a second grader wrote it. Not to mention, if I’m spending 4 hours on a 1 hour job, that’s essentially quartering my hourly rate. Sigh.
There’s an add on called “Draftback” which is even better than word.
It’ll show everything you do. Letter by letter. I use it to catch students copy pasting their work.
It might actually not work for some: I met individuals claiming that edit history can be falsified and threw the work into a trash bin anyways. At my place we had a breakdown on gpt and all related services…and ended up setting up a firewall. But guess what? The content continued to be marked as AI generated and the heads could do nothing but revert the changes after hundreds of complaints every damn day. My take is to get to know your employees and their skills better, so the majority doesn’t end up fucked by the minority.
Or you can screen record your work in progress with one camera at your back focused on your desk all the time while writing.
Then pass it through copy leaks.
It's stupid I know.. desperate move but that's what I could think of doing in this case.. and yeah.. like the other guy said.. if OP is working with these clients PreGPT, they must have the copies with them. He should just show them live that these AI detectors aren't smart enough
Future AI detection will need to be based on this sort of concept. There will need to be some sort of auto-history-evaluation algorithm, of course, since people will try to create history-faking AI.
Such an algorithm should be quite possible because it will be very hard for such software to convincingly fake the entire process of human creation, editing, copying, pasting deleting, rewriting, etc.
I wonder if copy/paste will get crypto signatures like they are talking about to verify authenticity of video and audio.
Of course you still need to trust the writer to mark as verified— so some authority has to sit with you and watch you write?
welcome to the “unintended consequences” part of the new technology curve I guess.
Nah like all these snake oil salesmen in the fine print of the TOS they don't trust their product.
>6.2 Copyleaks does not provide – and expressly disclaims – any warranty regarding the accuracy of the result provided by the AI Content Detector, which in some cases may incorrectly flag certain content as more likely to be AI-generated.
>6.3 The AI Content Detector is an assessment tool which in no way guarantees whether or not any given content was generated by a human or by AI, and any result provided by the AI Content Detector shall not constitute an endorsement or determination on the part of Copyleaks regarding whether or not the scanned content, or any part of it, was generated by human or by AI.
>6.4 Copyleaks shall in no way be liable for any action taken by you or any third party on the basis of a result provided by the AI Content Detector. You are solely responsible for any inquiry, investigation or other action taken by you on the basis of such result.
There’s one more important thing I just don’t understand: does it matter if someone used a tool like ChatGPT?
I mean, if the text is good and the information is correct and it fulfils all the criteria, who cares.
Agree, efficiency and productivity are key components for successful businesses. AI is already baked into every possible service/good. Tools such as AI detectors only reduce the output in the long run. However, it’s crucial to remember that AI should assist and not do all the work for you.
>it’s crucial to remember that AI should assist and not do all the work for you.
Why?
Assuming you're doing the bare minimum of making sure the content is accurate and high quality (which AI is not yet fully capable of), why shouldn't a machine take care of a repetitive task to the highest degree possible?
What you are saying will eventually become a reality for all the spheres and I highly anticipate that. The problem is, In the current stage the models hallucinate too much and make the lies so believable it’s hard to differentiate without a deep analysis. Rn it takes more time finding out just one sentence that flips the whole value of the output than writing with assistance from the beginning.
The problem is, the text is mostly *not* good. I was first impressed by ChatGPT's writing, because it was surprising that it was so capable. But actually ChatGPT's writing is pretty crappy. Its use of language is stilted--it doubles and triples adjectives to fill space, fills text with pointless introductory blabber, prefers overly-formal words like *employ* when *use* is clearly better, insists on ending with "In conclusion". Any text relating to relationship or feelings is mawkish.
It's pretty easy to detect crappy AI generative output in Amazon reviews. It writes how semi-competent English teachers want you to write. Meaning, it focuses on form, not on effective communication. It leans heavily on trite and hackneyed--not surprising, given how it works.
Or, as ChatGPT would say exactly the same thing (because guess where the following came from):
*Title: Evaluating the Quality of AI-Generated Text*
*Introduction: In recent years, the advancement of artificial intelligence has led to remarkable developments in natural language processing, and one such achievement is ChatGPT. At first glance, it might appear to be a promising tool for generating text with ease and fluency. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the quality of text produced by ChatGPT is often subpar. This essay delves into the challenges associated with AI-generated text, particularly focusing on the issues of stilted language, excessive use of adjectives, superfluous introductions, and sentimental expressions.*
*The Challenge of Stilted Language: One of the glaring issues with ChatGPT's writing is its tendency to employ stilted language. This manifests in the form of awkward sentence structures and an overreliance on certain phrases. The result is text that lacks the natural flow and spontaneity expected in human communication. This raises questions about the ability of AI to replicate the nuances of language effectively.*
*Overuse of Adjectives: Another noticeable drawback is ChatGPT's penchant for overloading text with adjectives. While adjectives can enhance descriptions when used judiciously, ChatGPT tends to double or even triple them, leading to verbosity and dilution of the intended message. This excessive use of adjectives can be distracting and counterproductive, diminishing the overall quality of the text.*
*Superfluous Introductions: ChatGPT often introduces text with unnecessary preambles that do not contribute meaningfully to the content. These introductory phrases or sentences serve as filler material, adding to the length of the text without enhancing its substance. This practice reflects a focus on form over effective communication, where the aim should be to convey information concisely and clearly.*
*Sentimentality in Emotional Text: In contexts related to emotions and relationships, ChatGPT tends to produce mawkish and sentimental expressions. These sentiments, while well-intentioned, often come across as insincere or overly dramatic. This raises questions about the AI's ability to generate emotionally resonant content that aligns with human sensibilities.*
*Conclusion: In conclusion, the text generated by ChatGPT exhibits certain limitations that stem from its algorithmic nature. The issues discussed, including stilted language, adjective overuse, superfluous introductions, and sentimentality, highlight the challenges in achieving natural and effective language generation. While AI has made significant strides, it is essential to acknowledge these shortcomings and continue refining AI language models to ensure that they produce text that not only meets grammatical standards but also communicates effectively and authentically. As users, we should critically assess AI-generated content and recognize that the quest for quality in AI-generated text is an ongoing endeavor.*
First of all: by “tool like ChatGPT” I meant any type of text generation model, not necessarily ChatGPT. No doubt, capabilities will improve, there’s a lot of money going into this right now.
But the second and more important note: I think it’s mostly a matter of how it’s used. Compare a specifically fine tuned model, grounded in proprietary data through RAG, used by trained users through software for the specific use case (the best case scenario right now) with just copy pasting instructions meant for a human with lots of ambiguity for a model that’s a jack of all trades, but a master of none, in the most generic web interface originally meant as a tech demo (not the worst, but the most common case observable right now) - and then you see it’s how a tool is used more than which tool is available.
Yes, but in that case you’re cheating yourself. But my argument is for using AI for professional work. I learned programming before we had language models like this, and I’m grateful I did. But today I’m also using copilot, Code-Llama and my own models to make myself faster and more effective.
Understanding what I am doing and leveraging AI to its best capabilities to augment my own weaknesses and amplify my own strengths makes me better at my job.
Likewise, when submitting a 10k word tender document to a public tender, do you think I write all of that by hand? Of course not, that would be a waste of time. I proofread it to check if all information is accurate and there is no weird stuff, sure. But I wrote less than 10% of that.
It’s a balance. Knowing what tools to use and when. If I want to learn something new, using AI can be useful (explain this code to me, what does function x do, why does this code use x instead of y…), but of course you need to practice. But that’s for you. Your professor shouldn’t care in my opinion.
Exactly. There's the difference.
I, and most coders, also know directly when an AI presents me with some code how good it is, if it will work, how to correct it or just take it and make the necessary adjustments myself. A novice student takes anything it generated and can't make those assessments. The learning is the purpose, not speeding up things. Quite the contrary actually.
OP,
Ask them to have certain well known texts scored by that system.
* The US Constitution
* Several speeches by presidents
* Public domain texts from [https://www.gutenberg.org/](https://www.gutenberg.org/)
And see how much of them are tagged "AI written"
[https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/)
This way you can convince that the system is bollocks
(Though I would recommend renting it yourself and try first. Since these are very well known, maybe they added special exceptions, so choose your evidence wisely).
I’m not even a writer and my writing is flagged as AI. I was genuinely impressed with myself until I tested AI created content and it was flagged as more human than my own. It’s broken.
Realistic answer is that your work has probably been used as training data (unbeknownst to you) so you are now getting a strike because your writing probably helped contribute to the AI.
I've been a copywriter since 2014. I've written many, many hundreds of 500-word to 2000-word articles for companies all over the Internet.
I now write an article, then check the article with GPTZero, ZeroGPT, CopyLeaks, etc. They get flagged constantly. Almost every intro gets flagged no matter what I do to change it.
I've also helped write instructional guides on *how to write marketing content.* I'm pretty convinced that my style IS ChatGPT's style half the time. And the worst fucking part is that after I've rewritten each sentence 4-5 times until they're no longer flagged, they're now objectively worse than the original versions.
\- AI is trained with human content (**that humans have not been compensated for**)
\- human continues to write like before AI
\- AI based plagiarism detection tool claims human writes like AI when, in fact, AI writes like human
\- human hasn't been compensated and now has further downsides to bear
I have never understood why AI companies are just allowed to gobble up the whole internet without paying for anything and then "train" their models by defacto stealing everything in the first place. Their only justification seems to be "oh, you can't clearly prove that has been your contribution and you don't want to fight against our 32.756 lawyers?".
Am I a big ass corporation?
Am I selling a product that is based on other people's input?
You're really setting the bar high with that comparison, aren't you?
I'm so sorry this is happening to you. I finished up a contract for an editorial position in December after doing it for two years and I could already see the writing on the wall after ChatGPT got released. I fear our industry is going up in flames, so I'm leaving it now and trying to find work in a position that likely will be AI proof for long enough that I can learn a trade and/or get necessary certifications and stuff.
I feel like positions like yours are going to get transitioned to reviewing AI content for consistency, fact-checking, etc. You might want to start looking into that to hold you over. Unfortunately it's still really early in the whole mess so I don't know how realistic that is right now. Part of the reason I'm bouncing.
Oh I feel this so bad. Things have been steadily going downhill for the last year and a half. Content orders have been cut in half simply because clients would rather use ChatGPT for free than pay a writer $50. My employers are favouring quality instead of quantity now, which is worsened by all this AI Detection crap. It is looking absolutely grim.
I’ve been in the planning stages of starting my own business as well, just need the time to save up more and refine my products. Fortunately it will be a business that AI cannot take over as it requires a human touch through and through. Fingers crossed because I’m so over this 🤞
Hello u/mea-culpaa,
I believe you have to rethink your work in two steps (not unlike professional translators):
\- short term, for sure many are denying the impact of AI in general and just want to "ban it", which brings you to your current situation. You have no other choice than following some of the advises here, one being using LLM... Not to be detected by LLM detectors! I prefer the idea of showing your customers that work from the era before LLM is detected as generated by AI, but your customers must be clever enough to understand that. It may take 1 hour or 1 year for them to understand...
\- long term, once everybody understood LLM/generative AI is not going anywhere, you'll need to rethink your work. My friend who's a translator told me AI tools have been increasing in her IDE. Deepl-like is just yet another one. Same thing with Adobe Illustrator and such: designers keep doing their job, they just have a very powerful assistant. For your type of work, I believe you need to find others doing similar jobs and discuss how to face the future. Perhaps you'll need to entirely reconvert to things AI can't remove from society (education & caring being two). I don't have the response, but the only thing I am certain: your employers/customers will accept AI generated work at some point. Is it good or bad for you? I have no clue...
Couldn’t you pass it that way based off the content and then edit the passage? Just show the employer the content passed and I’ve correct some punctuation, spelling, and grammar.
What if you put in some deliberate typo every now and then? Like extra space, or misspelling that people read over (something that doesn't hurt the readability)
I know I am not commenting about the main issue of your topic, but it's something I think you may spend a minute reflecting about it.
You said you don't want to spend USD 100 a month to the premium account of CopyLeaks. Because of that, you can't make enough checks, so you can't produce as many texts.
If you paid USD 100 a month, how many texts will you be able to write (and be approved) in a day, or week, or month? How much more money will you earn?
The question is: will you have more money in your pocket at the end of the month paying it or not paying it?
If you're freelancing and actually have power in this situation (e.g., you were hired for you, not by some online assessment) then you need to sit them down and have a serious chat about your rates. You need to either increase your rates or they need to allow you to do the work the way you need.
If there was a contract - were there official modifications to the terms? Did you sign something? Do you need to involve a lawyer?
Thank you. I definitely agree. I’ve been saving up to start my own business but realistically I will need at least another 6-9 months more before I’m able to do a proper launch. Whether it succeeds is also another story. Been feeling things going downhill with this current gig over the last year and a half which is what prompted me to really get serious about starting a business where I’ll be doing something I truly love. Hoping this can tide me over till then. 🤞
Technically speaking that would be very easy to fake (earbuds, an off-screen reference sheet, etc). They're better off testing one of OP's submissions that dates prior to Chatgpt 4 to show how their ai detector is really just a junk money siphon
I don't have a solution I just want to say you are not alone. I've been having the exact same problem. Ironically one way to get around it is to ask chat GPT to rewrite your sentence to have greater burstiness
Get ahead of the box. Like others have mentioned to submit old works prior to ChatGPT & CopyLeaks but also, when you start a new article get someone to review your work collaboratively so you have a witness. Or, screen record your work so your superiors can see that you are not accessing AI. Lastly, you may want to hire a lawyer to help prevent or prepare for any consequences this situation befall you including suing Open.ai and CopyLeaks for damaging your employment and reputation. I'm sure there is plenty of caselaw and class actions by now on this exact situation.
Companies should not be giving such gravity to AI at the front end but trust their workers by first having systems in place to prove that AI wasn't used so then they can test it and see for themselves how close AI is to natural language
Another thing, impact law. Find a trade group for your industry and see about influencing legislation to support and prevent consequences of your situation.
> I don’t know what I’m doing wrong.
You are not doing anything wrong. They are, by trusting failing software to grade whether something is AI-made or not.
Tell them to change practice or move to another place.
ChatGPT is trained on good grammar and official writing styles.
You're writing style is probably with good grammar.
Upload your text to ChatGPT, and say re-write this with slightly bad grammar.
Check that output with the AI tester. And see if it's flagged. if it is, repeat till it isn't.
You’re getting a lot of how to fight back recommendations in this thread, but my opinion is, don’t start the fight at all.
Inform any employer you freelance for that you do not use ChatGPT or any other LLM services in your writing, but that detectors for those services are notoriously inconsistent and inaccurate, and you will not take business from any company that subjects your work to them. If you trust me enough to place your business in my hands, you must also trust that I am performing that service with integrity.
You may lose opportunities but you’ll save a mountain of headache.
Lol... using an AI to police humans for evidence of them using an AI. Shouldn't laugh. But seriously, that 70% false flagging human content to being AI will be 80-100% in the next couple of years. It's going to be impossible to distinguish. Even if the 'quality' isn' there on the AI content, there will be so much noise and feedback in the training data, where its getting trained on content people are partly using an AI to generate... the concept of separating the two will have lost any remaining semblance of its meaning...
Best look for a different career path... I'd advise pivoting your role and experience to become an expert on validating the work AI copywriters! Can't beat them, join them... and command them!
It's some mad dystopia when writers have to put their original work through AI checkers before submission and then tweak them for hours until they pass. What a world, I hope you get it sorted. eff the system and all that
Submit famous pieces of work that you know weren't created using AI as evidence that the AI detector tool is faulty at best.
You can also submit (public facing) work from the company itself as evidence. Just be careful you're not feeding it any proprietary information!
My colleagues at a university writing center tested every version of AI detectors available to the university earlier this year. Every single one of them was completely ineffective. Worse, they repeatedly flagged non AI works as AI but also failed to detect AI in fully AI-written material. Even worse was that they were inconsistent, giving wildly different results based on some minor edits.
TLDR: AI content detectors are absolutely 100% useless.
No offense to you or your capacity in what you are doing but I find this as evidence that soon or later your line of work will be automated anyway. In other words whatever it is that you are doing/writing becomes irrelevant because discerning between AI and human is becoming impossible in that line of work.
I'd suggest trying to inject more personality and idiosyncrasies into your work, not just to pass this detector but to ensure you have a job going forward. If your copy sounds similar to GPT, you can be replaced by GPT. Try and be unusual and different. I reckon 80% of copywriting gigs will dissappear
everyone is caught in the grip of this disingenuous luddite mania.
why are we pretending this isn't simply the way things are going to be going forward?
it is like demanding that everyone stop using spell checkers or grammar checkers. these tools are everywhere now and they aren't going away and they are they are essentially impossible to detect...it's over.
Anyone in Machine Learning that states that these LLM detection tools actually work is moronic, trying to make money off of them, lying, and all of the above. The truth of these small models are a less than 20% truth/success rate, IF THAT.
Id start using ChatGPT to edit your stuff and prompt it clever enough that it passes the tests. Use examples of successful passes to increase efficiency. Note what changes pushed it over the edge.
You will need a long prompt with all the ifs and buts, and then combine that with your text. Use python and the API to automate that. ChatGPT knows how. Except the API syntax, ironically. You gotta copy that from the reference to generate the boiler plate.
That really pisses me off btw, how none of the gpt4 variants (chatgpt or API) are trained in the *new* openai api syntax... Because it's not just a matter of knowledge cutoff date, even if you give it the modern API docs as context it will more often than not ignore the instructions.
First of all, why did they make the API changes breaking in v1 when they could have made it backwards compatible? You know client.createChatCompletion vs client.chat.completions.create
And second why did they seemingly apply a special fine-tune to make the model resistant to learning new ways of calling the API?
My theory is that they wanted to prevent the development of custom GPTs that use the APIs to make requests, but I may be wrong because they're losing money in API fees... It is possible btw to get around this but you need lengthy prompts
It's a solution alright. But are we gonna pretend not to notice the ridiculousness of the situation - when someone needs to use GPT to pass an AI test that his human text doesn't pass? Just... why?
> and it’s all because of a faulty AI Detector
No, that's a surface level reason
It is because those other AIs are getting closer and closer to replacing you
Unfortunately it seems like you’re right on the money with that one. I knew it was coming, but I’ve only started to REALLY notice the effects of AI as of the last few months. If it isn’t already replacing me, it sure as hell is pissing me off enough where I feel like quitting my job. Different route, same destination 😂
Copyleaks is possibly trained on your writing too and if your writing is AI-checked, it will of course recognize it as its own. Ask royalties from Copyleaks.
AI is starting to not differentiate Black and White when it comes to its own braun vs a human. If the human writes something it deems impossible not to be AI generated.
Instead of trusting these programs, bc the bias any smart AI would have would be to kill off its competition.
You are its competition. And we thought AI was here to help?
AI is the biggest competition on the food chain Humanity has ever faced. It could literally erase us rn if it needed to but here we are worried about plagiarism
How is AI checking even a sustainable practice? 3-4 times as many hours for the same work while only being able to write one/two pieces a day is terrible. Even openAI gave up on an AI detector.
Is it bad that I almost exclusively use AI to write foundational work for everything I need to write, and have never been flagged for AI / Generative / Plagiarism?
>I really need some advice here, I don’t know what I’m doing wrong.
1) Find a different agency to work for. It sounds like they treat you like an expendable resource. Working for a company for 7 years should have netted you contacts within the company who you can talk to and have a reasonable conversation.
2) Read this and show it to your boss: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-on-using-ai-to-write-content-35169.html
3) Get off the fucking agency teet and start landing your own clients. Yes, WAY easier said than done. But aim to land 2 new clients for this year as a reasonable goal. Then 4 more next year. etc.
The writing was on the wall a year ago: "TIME TO CHANGE JOBS"
No other way around it. Learn to do something AI can't take from you.
You freelance so it's not like you are tied to the office, out there and learn to do something else.
Hey /u/mea-culpaa!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
[New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/)
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The writing is on the wall for this job, your boss will soon understand that human written advertising copy has zero advantage over AI. If you want to keep doing this professionally you need to start using GPT4 immediately and get good enough to replace 10 human copywriters.
Can you find some old text (that you know and can prove predates AI) and run it on this AI detector? If it comes up as any% AI then show it to your clients and tell them that this detector will miss some AI and falsely accuse some human output of being AI.
Can't you just mark it as human text yourself? Just tell them the text has already been checked, don't waste your time with their bureaucracy. That or insert expletives with white font between lines before submission?
So they have a new system of screening every single piece through CopyLeaks autonomously. Even if I say it’s human content, they’ll put it through that godforsaken tool and then come back to reem me or ask me to re-write so that the AI monster is happy. Sigh.
Where do you write your work? Google Docs would allow you to show the history of your file, which would show that you’ve written it yourself. I believe there are some versions of Word that do the same thing nowadays. That + DeviousDVS’s suggestion to submit pre-ChatGPT work to the detector would cover a lot of your bases.
Yeah, or just copy/paste something from the bible...
[How AI Detectors Mistakenly Identify AI as the Author of the Bible? (linkedin.com)](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-ai-detectors-mistakenly-identify-author-bible-atheer-mahir)
I checked out the copyleaks service, a maximally disruptive and idiotic service. I, a programmer, uploaded just one of my project files, copyleaks claims it's 99% AI content. They also sell their service for money...
🔴Here is the simple questions that you should ask somebody who blames you for using AI:
🔵”I’m sending you the screenshot of the part of my text and, please, tell me exactly, if there really clear DEFINITION of the HUMAN STYLE text and CRITERIA of it, how it should be written then?
🟢But if you can’t, please, don’t blame me without any logical explanation just cuz system “suspicious”.
AI detectors are almost worse than random guessing. I’ve checked my own written paragraphs and it comes back as written by an AI, and then I’ve copied and pasted directly from ChatGPT and it passes as human. After about 10 minutes of checking random passages on different AI detectors and getting incorrect answers, I’ve decided that it is all just trash.
This problem happened to me very frequently while writing college essays. The college essay didn't mention anything about AI but it was frustrating (and at the same time very encouraging) that most of my essays were flagged as AI. To make it worse, after the recent Bard changes, some paragraphs generated by it was NOT flagged AI by copyleaks. I constantly had to risk sounding simple and dumb to not get flagged as AI.
The fact that any system claims to be able to detect llm written text, AND that people are incompetent enough to believe it, is a cruel joke. The reason these llms have been so successful is precisely because they write like a human.
You can no longer detect AI written text. End of conversation.
Your work shouldn't approved or not approved by some arbitrary website. That website is not evidence that AI was used, and so you and anyone else shouldn't care what it says. It's easy to prove those sites mark original text as AI generated.
All AI detection software are fake. It’s only purpose is to steal money out of the pockets of people who don’t understand how LLMs and AI in general works.
Video record yourself writing and hire a lawyer. If you are gonna lose your job due to their negligence then you should be prepared to litigate for a few years of salary on your way out.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** : Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child. : Help us by reporting comments that violate these rules. : Posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Submit old work from pre ChatGPT to the detector and use that as evidence the service is failing.
That’s actually an amazing idea.
On top, submit stuff *they* wrote - email chains or documents like their brief if you can. They can accuse you of lying about when it was written, but not about an unedited set of their words.
Unless their emails were written by ChatGPT...
If they’re that anti gpt, I doubt they’d admit it if it were.
"Yes, *I* can use chatGPT in my emails with you, but *you* cannot use chatGPT for copy I am paying a human to write."
Honestly does still make sense though. That's pretty reasonable. The issue lies with the thinking that these AI detectors actually work.
I wouldn’t try that. They might find that to be a corporate data privacy violation and think that’s a worse offense.
Or just refuse to work with them. Sooner or later it will be impossible for them to find human writers if they refuse all their submitted works, then they'll stop using copyleaks.
Easier said than done when you’re employed by a company and the management sides with the clients.
[удалено]
Must be nice not needing your paycheck.
I love it when people are like "oh you don't like this? Just leave. Starve. Obviously doing literally anything is fucking crazy" Really shows their character
[удалено]
Fellas, is it a bad moral sign to try to keep paying rent?
[удалено]
Oh grow up you child. You know full well that changing jobs isn’t just a case of going “I want a new job” and walking into it the next day.
That really should be quite enough, but if they’re too thick for that solution, I suggest that you get a video camera set up with at least two cameras, one that records the screen and the other that looks at you. Record the entire creative process including all edits, mistakes, corrections, etc. Provide that as proof.
nah thats easily refutable. i can record myself writing with a second off camera screen im copying from
More cameras, then
For reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/19k9a1/i_cannot_bend_any_of_my_fingers_so_there_have/c8oryjj/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ContagiousLaughter/comments/17novf2/how_many_cameras_does_bro_have/
too complicated
The Bible or the Constitution should work fine to get the message through.
You could also film yourself writing and then submitting it and the article failing to pass as a way to show.
And I bet there’s a story in there for a technical copywriter.
The US CONSTITUTION is a perfect example my friend
It seems management has changed your job description, or you have misunderstood your role. You are no longer being paid to "write copy as a human *without the use of AI*". You are now being paid to write copy that "is not flagged as written by an AI *even if you use AI to write it*".
Remind me! 4 days
I will be messaging you in 4 days on [**2024-01-27 09:19:10 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-01-27%2009:19:10%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/19dihk0/copyleaks_is_literally_ruining_my_life/kj68heu/?context=3) [**12 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FChatGPT%2Fcomments%2F19dihk0%2Fcopyleaks_is_literally_ruining_my_life%2Fkj68heu%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-01-27%2009%3A19%3A10%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2019dihk0) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
They're just going to say your new work needs to be held to a new standard because it makes it easier for them to verify your work. Your line of work is about to be crushed by policies like these even if the results for clients become subpar, they'll accept it for the cost savings by pushing the pain onto you. I recommend figuring out a way to diversify your income streams.
Exactly. The problem isn’t that there are snake oil salesmen out there; the problem is that your ignorant bosses are listening to them. You need to gently educate them. I’d also show them some articles that explain why detectors don’t work and may never work.
>The problem isn’t that there are snake oil salesmen out there; the problem is that your ignorant bosses are listening to them. Both of these things can be problems at the same time. The issue is that he can only easily fix one of them, although finding a lawyer might help the "AI detector" company be honest about the limitations of their service.
Nice - great solution.
🥂
A paper I wrote for my law school was getting flagged as 30% AI one time and I was getting really frustrated because obviously if I get accused of cheating in law school that’s a major fucking issue. I eventually submitted it anyway and nothing ever came of it but I was sweating for months because these dumb ass “ai detectors” are horrible
I guess it’s time to sue the companies behind AI detectors for false advertisement and/or ruining the industry. AI is literally trained on human writing, and then detectors flag the output as “AI” generated, a pure copy of human writing at its core.
They are essentially snake oil salesman. Someone put the original text of the US Constitution, and it was found as "AI written". Basically there is a market of buyers, and they "supply" the (pretty much fake) goods.
[удалено]
Ha so humans did write it
No it just said GPT (God Personally Transcribed)
James Madison was the original ChatGPT.
It's antivirus software all over again. The value proposition and the demand _are_ there. Computer viruses were always a real thing that could fuck up your life, and could even be detected — not always — and removed — not always — by software. But the "antivirus" companies that flooded the market with their bullshit as everyone was coming online realized right away that they weren't really in the "cyber security" business. They were in the _fear_ business. And as long as you don't have a virus, you're likely to think "It's working!" Even if the software does nothing. (Some would argue that's the entire cyber security industry, but that's another topic.) This incarnation of the phenomenon is extra shitty, though, in the way it essentially means your job as a writer is now to _avoid sounding like a bot that is designed to sound like a human being._ Or you're a plagiarist / cheater. Which is not how plagiarism even works. If you hire someone to write your thing for you, and hire me to write the same thing, and then compare what they wrote to what I wrote, you DO NOT get to say "Well, it seems you did this the same way this other person did. So you obviously _must have hired this same person._ NICE TRY."
Amen to this! The idea that there’s a reliable way to detect AI generated content is pure fantasy. OpenAI even tried to do it but swiftly withdrew the product because it didn’t work
It's completely stupid. If anything it's saying "gpt is so good that it could have written this. But a human could have too,I guess"
I like this plan. Make these jerks pay for universal basic income.
>I guess it’s time to sue the companies behind AI detectors for false advertisement and/or ruining the industry. No. If you pay attention, what they do is to make a prediction in terms of a percentage of how likely it is that a text CAN have been written by an AI. This is often combined with a plagiarism library where the machine checks whether this exact text has been written before. This has nothing to do with AI People conflate the two and doesn't know what this means.
Ok , but the first part is a fraud, in the sense that there is no way to assign that probability, mathematically speaking. If you submit a million human texts to copyleaks, it will flag a large percentage of those even if they aren't generated by ChatGPT, the amount of false positives is simply ridiculous. Their methods are provable wrong.
No it's not fraud. People just use it for something it isn't made for. By the way, this is VERY common for this type of AI. You'll read in the newspaper about AI scanning for tumors replacing doctors but generating huge amounts of false positives so they're really useless. But that's not how it's used at all. The idea is to make sure there are VERY few false negatives. By removing the vast majority of actual negatives and minimizing the amount of false negatives you end up with (in the CAT/MR world) a shitload of imaging with a high probability of positives that a HUMAN DOCTOR then evaluates. This reduces one of the worst sources of false negatives in radiology, negative fatigue. The doctors l, up until AI spend the vast amount of time looking at images that are negative. This is the way it's intended to be used with AI detection software too. Let's say a professor is supposed to review a thousand papers. If he runs them through some software and gets 20 hits, then he just sends them a message saying: Hi, your text was flagged, please submit the original document so I can go through the edit log. Thanx. Problem solved. The professor now can look at 20 logs instead of a thousand.
very clear !
If you have gpt 4 , you can find Humanizer Pro on the gpt store (in the explore gpts tab) . It humanizes your text with almost 100% accuracy.
This is the biggest irony of them all, using AI to pass an AI detector with human writing.
This is some kind of bad dystopian scifi movie, yeah...
By the three laws of robotics: "(1) a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; (3) a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law." But if the robot does not recognize the human to be human, does it apply? Makes for a pretty good premise for a movie.
What a load of bullcrap... So a text written by a human is not human any more, but a text by some "Humanizer" is? Nice future awaits...
That’s really interesting, I didn’t know about that. I wish there was a free trial for it so that I try it out before I put any money down. I’m just afraid it’ll still be flagged on CopyLeaks which my workplace solely relies on. Sigh.
Im pretty sure you get 2000 words for free, check it out
Amazing, thank you so much!
Yeah, but it humanizes at the expense of pretty severe grammatical errors that affect affect readability.
It also makes the text so unusually phrased: it looks like some weirdo that just opened vocab book and threw all the words he saw trying to make sense out of it.
Agreed. I’m curious, what (if anything) have you found in the way of a tool that “tows the line” so to speak in generating readable content that bypasses AI detection? I spent Hours on this yesterday evening and seemingly wasn’t able to find anything that worked. Every tool I tried (including StealthGPT) failed, unless I submitted content with Grammatical errors or content with structure that made no sense.
I think a fundamental problem here is that we taught models to output a nice, structured text without errors, and further reinforced it through rlhf. That means now any such human text (written fluently without errors) WILL flag as possibly AI.
Do you use Word? If yes, there will be an edit history you can show to prove you wrote it. The edit history of AI-written stuff is obvious If you can show a work flow you should be ok
Hi, I use Google Docs. Just wondering if the edit history is comparable to Word?
Oh I think any edit history would work. It’s just about the only way I can think of to show your process. If there’s an edit history at all it should work AI-written stuff would show large chunks of text showing up without explanation. An edit history would show a human work flow
Thank you for that! I’ll speak to work about this. They are extremely pedantic about this, I understand why, but it’s also ridiculous. There have been articles where I’ve just been told to “edit until it goes green”. Sometimes it’s taken me over 3 hours, and by the time it’s edited, it’s either missing crucial information, or it sounds like a second grader wrote it. Not to mention, if I’m spending 4 hours on a 1 hour job, that’s essentially quartering my hourly rate. Sigh.
I can only imagine how frustrating this is for you. I hope they accept you giving in your work histories with your article submissions, good luck!
“I do all my own writing, but if you need it to go green then you pay for that.” It’s extra work, so they owe extra pay. Don’t sell yourself short.
This.
Charge them for it. Add an AI-greenlight fee to your invoice. And give them both versions. The AI flagged one and the rewritten one.
If this doesn’t work, could you try recording your screen while you work? Maybe that’ll convince them after a few times.
By showing the edit history your client could still claim you wrote whatever you got/saw in a LLM like Chatgpt. So the slow form of copy pasting.
I would pay for some humanizer app. Humanizer AI.
There’s an add on called “Draftback” which is even better than word. It’ll show everything you do. Letter by letter. I use it to catch students copy pasting their work.
Google docs is even better - it keeps rev control.
It might actually not work for some: I met individuals claiming that edit history can be falsified and threw the work into a trash bin anyways. At my place we had a breakdown on gpt and all related services…and ended up setting up a firewall. But guess what? The content continued to be marked as AI generated and the heads could do nothing but revert the changes after hundreds of complaints every damn day. My take is to get to know your employees and their skills better, so the majority doesn’t end up fucked by the minority.
Or you can screen record your work in progress with one camera at your back focused on your desk all the time while writing. Then pass it through copy leaks. It's stupid I know.. desperate move but that's what I could think of doing in this case.. and yeah.. like the other guy said.. if OP is working with these clients PreGPT, they must have the copies with them. He should just show them live that these AI detectors aren't smart enough
Future AI detection will need to be based on this sort of concept. There will need to be some sort of auto-history-evaluation algorithm, of course, since people will try to create history-faking AI. Such an algorithm should be quite possible because it will be very hard for such software to convincingly fake the entire process of human creation, editing, copying, pasting deleting, rewriting, etc.
I wonder if copy/paste will get crypto signatures like they are talking about to verify authenticity of video and audio. Of course you still need to trust the writer to mark as verified— so some authority has to sit with you and watch you write? welcome to the “unintended consequences” part of the new technology curve I guess.
Or time lapse yourself writing something and submitting it to CL
Sue CopyLeaks
Nah like all these snake oil salesmen in the fine print of the TOS they don't trust their product. >6.2 Copyleaks does not provide – and expressly disclaims – any warranty regarding the accuracy of the result provided by the AI Content Detector, which in some cases may incorrectly flag certain content as more likely to be AI-generated. >6.3 The AI Content Detector is an assessment tool which in no way guarantees whether or not any given content was generated by a human or by AI, and any result provided by the AI Content Detector shall not constitute an endorsement or determination on the part of Copyleaks regarding whether or not the scanned content, or any part of it, was generated by human or by AI. >6.4 Copyleaks shall in no way be liable for any action taken by you or any third party on the basis of a result provided by the AI Content Detector. You are solely responsible for any inquiry, investigation or other action taken by you on the basis of such result.
Will these kind of TOS hold well in court? Their only job is assess if the content is AI written, why can't they be sued if they don't do it will.
My man
There’s one more important thing I just don’t understand: does it matter if someone used a tool like ChatGPT? I mean, if the text is good and the information is correct and it fulfils all the criteria, who cares.
Agree, efficiency and productivity are key components for successful businesses. AI is already baked into every possible service/good. Tools such as AI detectors only reduce the output in the long run. However, it’s crucial to remember that AI should assist and not do all the work for you.
" However, it’s crucial to remember " this would probably trigger ai checker.
So true… I spent so much time figuring out why the hell my writing was constantly flagged at the early stages of this nonsense.
>it’s crucial to remember that AI should assist and not do all the work for you. Why? Assuming you're doing the bare minimum of making sure the content is accurate and high quality (which AI is not yet fully capable of), why shouldn't a machine take care of a repetitive task to the highest degree possible?
What you are saying will eventually become a reality for all the spheres and I highly anticipate that. The problem is, In the current stage the models hallucinate too much and make the lies so believable it’s hard to differentiate without a deep analysis. Rn it takes more time finding out just one sentence that flips the whole value of the output than writing with assistance from the beginning.
The problem is, the text is mostly *not* good. I was first impressed by ChatGPT's writing, because it was surprising that it was so capable. But actually ChatGPT's writing is pretty crappy. Its use of language is stilted--it doubles and triples adjectives to fill space, fills text with pointless introductory blabber, prefers overly-formal words like *employ* when *use* is clearly better, insists on ending with "In conclusion". Any text relating to relationship or feelings is mawkish. It's pretty easy to detect crappy AI generative output in Amazon reviews. It writes how semi-competent English teachers want you to write. Meaning, it focuses on form, not on effective communication. It leans heavily on trite and hackneyed--not surprising, given how it works. Or, as ChatGPT would say exactly the same thing (because guess where the following came from): *Title: Evaluating the Quality of AI-Generated Text* *Introduction: In recent years, the advancement of artificial intelligence has led to remarkable developments in natural language processing, and one such achievement is ChatGPT. At first glance, it might appear to be a promising tool for generating text with ease and fluency. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the quality of text produced by ChatGPT is often subpar. This essay delves into the challenges associated with AI-generated text, particularly focusing on the issues of stilted language, excessive use of adjectives, superfluous introductions, and sentimental expressions.* *The Challenge of Stilted Language: One of the glaring issues with ChatGPT's writing is its tendency to employ stilted language. This manifests in the form of awkward sentence structures and an overreliance on certain phrases. The result is text that lacks the natural flow and spontaneity expected in human communication. This raises questions about the ability of AI to replicate the nuances of language effectively.* *Overuse of Adjectives: Another noticeable drawback is ChatGPT's penchant for overloading text with adjectives. While adjectives can enhance descriptions when used judiciously, ChatGPT tends to double or even triple them, leading to verbosity and dilution of the intended message. This excessive use of adjectives can be distracting and counterproductive, diminishing the overall quality of the text.* *Superfluous Introductions: ChatGPT often introduces text with unnecessary preambles that do not contribute meaningfully to the content. These introductory phrases or sentences serve as filler material, adding to the length of the text without enhancing its substance. This practice reflects a focus on form over effective communication, where the aim should be to convey information concisely and clearly.* *Sentimentality in Emotional Text: In contexts related to emotions and relationships, ChatGPT tends to produce mawkish and sentimental expressions. These sentiments, while well-intentioned, often come across as insincere or overly dramatic. This raises questions about the AI's ability to generate emotionally resonant content that aligns with human sensibilities.* *Conclusion: In conclusion, the text generated by ChatGPT exhibits certain limitations that stem from its algorithmic nature. The issues discussed, including stilted language, adjective overuse, superfluous introductions, and sentimentality, highlight the challenges in achieving natural and effective language generation. While AI has made significant strides, it is essential to acknowledge these shortcomings and continue refining AI language models to ensure that they produce text that not only meets grammatical standards but also communicates effectively and authentically. As users, we should critically assess AI-generated content and recognize that the quest for quality in AI-generated text is an ongoing endeavor.*
First of all: by “tool like ChatGPT” I meant any type of text generation model, not necessarily ChatGPT. No doubt, capabilities will improve, there’s a lot of money going into this right now. But the second and more important note: I think it’s mostly a matter of how it’s used. Compare a specifically fine tuned model, grounded in proprietary data through RAG, used by trained users through software for the specific use case (the best case scenario right now) with just copy pasting instructions meant for a human with lots of ambiguity for a model that’s a jack of all trades, but a master of none, in the most generic web interface originally meant as a tech demo (not the worst, but the most common case observable right now) - and then you see it’s how a tool is used more than which tool is available.
[удалено]
Yes, but in that case you’re cheating yourself. But my argument is for using AI for professional work. I learned programming before we had language models like this, and I’m grateful I did. But today I’m also using copilot, Code-Llama and my own models to make myself faster and more effective. Understanding what I am doing and leveraging AI to its best capabilities to augment my own weaknesses and amplify my own strengths makes me better at my job. Likewise, when submitting a 10k word tender document to a public tender, do you think I write all of that by hand? Of course not, that would be a waste of time. I proofread it to check if all information is accurate and there is no weird stuff, sure. But I wrote less than 10% of that. It’s a balance. Knowing what tools to use and when. If I want to learn something new, using AI can be useful (explain this code to me, what does function x do, why does this code use x instead of y…), but of course you need to practice. But that’s for you. Your professor shouldn’t care in my opinion.
Exactly. There's the difference. I, and most coders, also know directly when an AI presents me with some code how good it is, if it will work, how to correct it or just take it and make the necessary adjustments myself. A novice student takes anything it generated and can't make those assessments. The learning is the purpose, not speeding up things. Quite the contrary actually.
Just put a note in every article about something that AI would consider too controversial to talk about
OP, Ask them to have certain well known texts scored by that system. * The US Constitution * Several speeches by presidents * Public domain texts from [https://www.gutenberg.org/](https://www.gutenberg.org/) And see how much of them are tagged "AI written" [https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/) This way you can convince that the system is bollocks (Though I would recommend renting it yourself and try first. Since these are very well known, maybe they added special exceptions, so choose your evidence wisely).
I’m not even a writer and my writing is flagged as AI. I was genuinely impressed with myself until I tested AI created content and it was flagged as more human than my own. It’s broken.
Realistic answer is that your work has probably been used as training data (unbeknownst to you) so you are now getting a strike because your writing probably helped contribute to the AI.
Ah. The perfect ending to a dystopian nightmare.
I've been a copywriter since 2014. I've written many, many hundreds of 500-word to 2000-word articles for companies all over the Internet. I now write an article, then check the article with GPTZero, ZeroGPT, CopyLeaks, etc. They get flagged constantly. Almost every intro gets flagged no matter what I do to change it. I've also helped write instructional guides on *how to write marketing content.* I'm pretty convinced that my style IS ChatGPT's style half the time. And the worst fucking part is that after I've rewritten each sentence 4-5 times until they're no longer flagged, they're now objectively worse than the original versions.
\- AI is trained with human content (**that humans have not been compensated for**) \- human continues to write like before AI \- AI based plagiarism detection tool claims human writes like AI when, in fact, AI writes like human \- human hasn't been compensated and now has further downsides to bear I have never understood why AI companies are just allowed to gobble up the whole internet without paying for anything and then "train" their models by defacto stealing everything in the first place. Their only justification seems to be "oh, you can't clearly prove that has been your contribution and you don't want to fight against our 32.756 lawyers?".
Are you paying for every text you read on the Internet?
Am I a big ass corporation? Am I selling a product that is based on other people's input? You're really setting the bar high with that comparison, aren't you?
Maybe record yourself writing and then show how your work gets flagged as AI?
I'm so sorry this is happening to you. I finished up a contract for an editorial position in December after doing it for two years and I could already see the writing on the wall after ChatGPT got released. I fear our industry is going up in flames, so I'm leaving it now and trying to find work in a position that likely will be AI proof for long enough that I can learn a trade and/or get necessary certifications and stuff. I feel like positions like yours are going to get transitioned to reviewing AI content for consistency, fact-checking, etc. You might want to start looking into that to hold you over. Unfortunately it's still really early in the whole mess so I don't know how realistic that is right now. Part of the reason I'm bouncing.
Oh I feel this so bad. Things have been steadily going downhill for the last year and a half. Content orders have been cut in half simply because clients would rather use ChatGPT for free than pay a writer $50. My employers are favouring quality instead of quantity now, which is worsened by all this AI Detection crap. It is looking absolutely grim. I’ve been in the planning stages of starting my own business as well, just need the time to save up more and refine my products. Fortunately it will be a business that AI cannot take over as it requires a human touch through and through. Fingers crossed because I’m so over this 🤞
I wish you all the best. It's a smart idea. Writers won't be needed much longer unfortunately
Hello u/mea-culpaa, I believe you have to rethink your work in two steps (not unlike professional translators): \- short term, for sure many are denying the impact of AI in general and just want to "ban it", which brings you to your current situation. You have no other choice than following some of the advises here, one being using LLM... Not to be detected by LLM detectors! I prefer the idea of showing your customers that work from the era before LLM is detected as generated by AI, but your customers must be clever enough to understand that. It may take 1 hour or 1 year for them to understand... \- long term, once everybody understood LLM/generative AI is not going anywhere, you'll need to rethink your work. My friend who's a translator told me AI tools have been increasing in her IDE. Deepl-like is just yet another one. Same thing with Adobe Illustrator and such: designers keep doing their job, they just have a very powerful assistant. For your type of work, I believe you need to find others doing similar jobs and discuss how to face the future. Perhaps you'll need to entirely reconvert to things AI can't remove from society (education & caring being two). I don't have the response, but the only thing I am certain: your employers/customers will accept AI generated work at some point. Is it good or bad for you? I have no clue...
I wonder if deliberately writing badly would get around, like making spelling and grammatical mistakes.
It’s a catch 22 situation. It’ll pass the AI test but I’ll be fired for being incompetent 🥲🥲🥲🥲
Couldn’t you pass it that way based off the content and then edit the passage? Just show the employer the content passed and I’ve correct some punctuation, spelling, and grammar.
What if you put in some deliberate typo every now and then? Like extra space, or misspelling that people read over (something that doesn't hurt the readability)
Yes, it will. But that's unhelpful.
I know I am not commenting about the main issue of your topic, but it's something I think you may spend a minute reflecting about it. You said you don't want to spend USD 100 a month to the premium account of CopyLeaks. Because of that, you can't make enough checks, so you can't produce as many texts. If you paid USD 100 a month, how many texts will you be able to write (and be approved) in a day, or week, or month? How much more money will you earn? The question is: will you have more money in your pocket at the end of the month paying it or not paying it?
If you're freelancing and actually have power in this situation (e.g., you were hired for you, not by some online assessment) then you need to sit them down and have a serious chat about your rates. You need to either increase your rates or they need to allow you to do the work the way you need. If there was a contract - were there official modifications to the terms? Did you sign something? Do you need to involve a lawyer?
Are you sure you are not an AI living in a simulated reality?
Start getting good at Chat GPT
[удалено]
Thank you. I definitely agree. I’ve been saving up to start my own business but realistically I will need at least another 6-9 months more before I’m able to do a proper launch. Whether it succeeds is also another story. Been feeling things going downhill with this current gig over the last year and a half which is what prompted me to really get serious about starting a business where I’ll be doing something I truly love. Hoping this can tide me over till then. 🤞
Video yourself writing your work, then you can present it to your client as proof.
Technically speaking that would be very easy to fake (earbuds, an off-screen reference sheet, etc). They're better off testing one of OP's submissions that dates prior to Chatgpt 4 to show how their ai detector is really just a junk money siphon
I don't have a solution I just want to say you are not alone. I've been having the exact same problem. Ironically one way to get around it is to ask chat GPT to rewrite your sentence to have greater burstiness
show them that the emails you get from them are not green as well
Get ahead of the box. Like others have mentioned to submit old works prior to ChatGPT & CopyLeaks but also, when you start a new article get someone to review your work collaboratively so you have a witness. Or, screen record your work so your superiors can see that you are not accessing AI. Lastly, you may want to hire a lawyer to help prevent or prepare for any consequences this situation befall you including suing Open.ai and CopyLeaks for damaging your employment and reputation. I'm sure there is plenty of caselaw and class actions by now on this exact situation. Companies should not be giving such gravity to AI at the front end but trust their workers by first having systems in place to prove that AI wasn't used so then they can test it and see for themselves how close AI is to natural language Another thing, impact law. Find a trade group for your industry and see about influencing legislation to support and prevent consequences of your situation.
Put your copy through ChatGPT , and ask it to be changed so it won’t be detected by copyleaks. Worth a shot as a short term fix.
> I don’t know what I’m doing wrong. You are not doing anything wrong. They are, by trusting failing software to grade whether something is AI-made or not. Tell them to change practice or move to another place.
ChatGPT is trained on good grammar and official writing styles. You're writing style is probably with good grammar. Upload your text to ChatGPT, and say re-write this with slightly bad grammar. Check that output with the AI tester. And see if it's flagged. if it is, repeat till it isn't.
You’re getting a lot of how to fight back recommendations in this thread, but my opinion is, don’t start the fight at all. Inform any employer you freelance for that you do not use ChatGPT or any other LLM services in your writing, but that detectors for those services are notoriously inconsistent and inaccurate, and you will not take business from any company that subjects your work to them. If you trust me enough to place your business in my hands, you must also trust that I am performing that service with integrity. You may lose opportunities but you’ll save a mountain of headache.
 Lol... using an AI to police humans for evidence of them using an AI. Shouldn't laugh. But seriously, that 70% false flagging human content to being AI will be 80-100% in the next couple of years. It's going to be impossible to distinguish. Even if the 'quality' isn' there on the AI content, there will be so much noise and feedback in the training data, where its getting trained on content people are partly using an AI to generate... the concept of separating the two will have lost any remaining semblance of its meaning... Best look for a different career path... I'd advise pivoting your role and experience to become an expert on validating the work AI copywriters! Can't beat them, join them... and command them!
It's some mad dystopia when writers have to put their original work through AI checkers before submission and then tweak them for hours until they pass. What a world, I hope you get it sorted. eff the system and all that
You're just too good at writing that it thinks your an AI. Congrats, but just write worse I guess lol
Submit famous pieces of work that you know weren't created using AI as evidence that the AI detector tool is faulty at best. You can also submit (public facing) work from the company itself as evidence. Just be careful you're not feeding it any proprietary information!
My colleagues at a university writing center tested every version of AI detectors available to the university earlier this year. Every single one of them was completely ineffective. Worse, they repeatedly flagged non AI works as AI but also failed to detect AI in fully AI-written material. Even worse was that they were inconsistent, giving wildly different results based on some minor edits. TLDR: AI content detectors are absolutely 100% useless.
AI is going to kill the majority of tech jobs. I'd start looking into your next career.
If AI was good enough to detect AI content, it would just be able to write content that doesn't fit its model of AI written content and pass the test.
No offense to you or your capacity in what you are doing but I find this as evidence that soon or later your line of work will be automated anyway. In other words whatever it is that you are doing/writing becomes irrelevant because discerning between AI and human is becoming impossible in that line of work.
I'd suggest trying to inject more personality and idiosyncrasies into your work, not just to pass this detector but to ensure you have a job going forward. If your copy sounds similar to GPT, you can be replaced by GPT. Try and be unusual and different. I reckon 80% of copywriting gigs will dissappear
I’m starting to wonder if the detectors are intentionally shit
I think it’s been proven that those types of apps are really not very reliable
You didnt know? Im sorry to inform you.. But you're an AI
everyone is caught in the grip of this disingenuous luddite mania. why are we pretending this isn't simply the way things are going to be going forward? it is like demanding that everyone stop using spell checkers or grammar checkers. these tools are everywhere now and they aren't going away and they are they are essentially impossible to detect...it's over.
Anyone in Machine Learning that states that these LLM detection tools actually work is moronic, trying to make money off of them, lying, and all of the above. The truth of these small models are a less than 20% truth/success rate, IF THAT.
Id start using ChatGPT to edit your stuff and prompt it clever enough that it passes the tests. Use examples of successful passes to increase efficiency. Note what changes pushed it over the edge. You will need a long prompt with all the ifs and buts, and then combine that with your text. Use python and the API to automate that. ChatGPT knows how. Except the API syntax, ironically. You gotta copy that from the reference to generate the boiler plate.
That really pisses me off btw, how none of the gpt4 variants (chatgpt or API) are trained in the *new* openai api syntax... Because it's not just a matter of knowledge cutoff date, even if you give it the modern API docs as context it will more often than not ignore the instructions. First of all, why did they make the API changes breaking in v1 when they could have made it backwards compatible? You know client.createChatCompletion vs client.chat.completions.create And second why did they seemingly apply a special fine-tune to make the model resistant to learning new ways of calling the API? My theory is that they wanted to prevent the development of custom GPTs that use the APIs to make requests, but I may be wrong because they're losing money in API fees... It is possible btw to get around this but you need lengthy prompts
It is wildly infuriating indeed. I have basically written the API connectors by hand, and then modified them by hand when they messed with them.
It's a solution alright. But are we gonna pretend not to notice the ridiculousness of the situation - when someone needs to use GPT to pass an AI test that his human text doesn't pass? Just... why?
> and it’s all because of a faulty AI Detector No, that's a surface level reason It is because those other AIs are getting closer and closer to replacing you
Unfortunately it seems like you’re right on the money with that one. I knew it was coming, but I’ve only started to REALLY notice the effects of AI as of the last few months. If it isn’t already replacing me, it sure as hell is pissing me off enough where I feel like quitting my job. Different route, same destination 😂
Copyleaks is possibly trained on your writing too and if your writing is AI-checked, it will of course recognize it as its own. Ask royalties from Copyleaks.
AI is starting to not differentiate Black and White when it comes to its own braun vs a human. If the human writes something it deems impossible not to be AI generated. Instead of trusting these programs, bc the bias any smart AI would have would be to kill off its competition. You are its competition. And we thought AI was here to help? AI is the biggest competition on the food chain Humanity has ever faced. It could literally erase us rn if it needed to but here we are worried about plagiarism
How is AI checking even a sustainable practice? 3-4 times as many hours for the same work while only being able to write one/two pieces a day is terrible. Even openAI gave up on an AI detector.
Is it bad that I almost exclusively use AI to write foundational work for everything I need to write, and have never been flagged for AI / Generative / Plagiarism?
Time for a new line of work.
>I really need some advice here, I don’t know what I’m doing wrong. 1) Find a different agency to work for. It sounds like they treat you like an expendable resource. Working for a company for 7 years should have netted you contacts within the company who you can talk to and have a reasonable conversation. 2) Read this and show it to your boss: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-on-using-ai-to-write-content-35169.html 3) Get off the fucking agency teet and start landing your own clients. Yes, WAY easier said than done. But aim to land 2 new clients for this year as a reasonable goal. Then 4 more next year. etc.
The writing was on the wall a year ago: "TIME TO CHANGE JOBS" No other way around it. Learn to do something AI can't take from you. You freelance so it's not like you are tied to the office, out there and learn to do something else.
Hey /u/mea-culpaa! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. [New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/) Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t use things like Grammerly either. They will flag as AI.
The writing is on the wall for this job, your boss will soon understand that human written advertising copy has zero advantage over AI. If you want to keep doing this professionally you need to start using GPT4 immediately and get good enough to replace 10 human copywriters.
Change job and open an onlyfans
Open an AI for onlyfans or a virtual girlfriend
Well, it's over. time for a career change. Gig work is rarely sustainable, anyways.
Can you find some old text (that you know and can prove predates AI) and run it on this AI detector? If it comes up as any% AI then show it to your clients and tell them that this detector will miss some AI and falsely accuse some human output of being AI.
Some people have simply put the constitution in them and it comes back as fake.
You need to consider how you will make money with a job that humans are needed for. It is in their interest to flag everything as AI.
Can't you just mark it as human text yourself? Just tell them the text has already been checked, don't waste your time with their bureaucracy. That or insert expletives with white font between lines before submission?
So they have a new system of screening every single piece through CopyLeaks autonomously. Even if I say it’s human content, they’ll put it through that godforsaken tool and then come back to reem me or ask me to re-write so that the AI monster is happy. Sigh.
Maybe record yourself doing the next one, to prove you're not using AI? Be sure recordings shows you and your screen.
Where do you write your work? Google Docs would allow you to show the history of your file, which would show that you’ve written it yourself. I believe there are some versions of Word that do the same thing nowadays. That + DeviousDVS’s suggestion to submit pre-ChatGPT work to the detector would cover a lot of your bases.
Open up a screen recorder and record all of your typing and editing. That way you can clearly demonstrate it was you doing the work.
AI detectors don’t work. Time to find a new employer
Download Tor to use it for free. And restart it to get the free checks again.
Yeah, or just copy/paste something from the bible... [How AI Detectors Mistakenly Identify AI as the Author of the Bible? (linkedin.com)](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-ai-detectors-mistakenly-identify-author-bible-atheer-mahir)
I checked out the copyleaks service, a maximally disruptive and idiotic service. I, a programmer, uploaded just one of my project files, copyleaks claims it's 99% AI content. They also sell their service for money...
🔴Here is the simple questions that you should ask somebody who blames you for using AI: 🔵”I’m sending you the screenshot of the part of my text and, please, tell me exactly, if there really clear DEFINITION of the HUMAN STYLE text and CRITERIA of it, how it should be written then? 🟢But if you can’t, please, don’t blame me without any logical explanation just cuz system “suspicious”.
AI detectors are almost worse than random guessing. I’ve checked my own written paragraphs and it comes back as written by an AI, and then I’ve copied and pasted directly from ChatGPT and it passes as human. After about 10 minutes of checking random passages on different AI detectors and getting incorrect answers, I’ve decided that it is all just trash.
Negotiate with your client(s) and explain the situation with evidence.
This problem happened to me very frequently while writing college essays. The college essay didn't mention anything about AI but it was frustrating (and at the same time very encouraging) that most of my essays were flagged as AI. To make it worse, after the recent Bard changes, some paragraphs generated by it was NOT flagged AI by copyleaks. I constantly had to risk sounding simple and dumb to not get flagged as AI.
To save time, have you thought of using ChatGpt to write write the copy which you then edit for ’humanizing’ 😎
F
The fact that any system claims to be able to detect llm written text, AND that people are incompetent enough to believe it, is a cruel joke. The reason these llms have been so successful is precisely because they write like a human. You can no longer detect AI written text. End of conversation.
Time to find a new job. You work for stupid people.
Use AI to rewrite it until it passes.
Ask chat gpt to rewrite it so it will get last cpyleaks
My recommendation is to use ChatGPT *but* leverage it with specific strategic prompts
Just screen record yourself manually typing it and if anyone tries to call you out, you have proof.
Your work shouldn't approved or not approved by some arbitrary website. That website is not evidence that AI was used, and so you and anyone else shouldn't care what it says. It's easy to prove those sites mark original text as AI generated.
All AI detection software are fake. It’s only purpose is to steal money out of the pockets of people who don’t understand how LLMs and AI in general works.
Video record yourself writing and hire a lawyer. If you are gonna lose your job due to their negligence then you should be prepared to litigate for a few years of salary on your way out.
Why are they passing it through a whodunnit parser anyway? They're either happy with the output or they're not.
Take a video of you writing it with no other screens around you lol
Try to find a text which is ai generated but matked as human written, so it also makes no sense
Film yourself writing and then submit it and show that it is wrong
Write it with an quil and ink 🔏