GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02819v3
• Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:48:45 GMT
• Title: GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified.
• Score: 13.853577885942514
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative language models has brought about substantial advancements in digital communication, while simultaneously raising concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Although numerous detection methods have been proposed to differentiate between AI and human-generated content, the fairness and robustness of these detectors remain underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified. Furthermore, we demonstrate that simple prompting strategies can not only mitigate this bias but also effectively bypass GPT detectors, suggesting that GPT detectors may unintentionally penalize writers with constrained linguistic expressions. Our results call for a broader conversation about the ethical implications of deploying ChatGPT content detectors and caution against their use in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when they may inadvertently penalize or exclude non-native English speakers from the global discourse. The published version of this study can be accessed at: www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(23)00130-7

Related papers

• Base Models Look Human To AI Detectors [68.7723287560362]
  We show that generated text from base models is often judged overwhelmingly human, whereas text generated by their instruction-tuned counterparts is not.<n>We propose Humanization by Iterative Paraphrasing (HIP), a detector-agnostic pipeline that minimally fine-tunes a base model into a paraphraser and applies it iteratively.<n>Our findings suggest that current detectors are tracking artifacts of instruction tuning and local context more than any in notion of machine-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T08:13:12Z)
• Different Time, Different Language: Revisiting the Bias Against Non-Native Speakers in GPT Detectors [0.9440878004466183]
  We show that the perplexity of texts from non-native speakers of Czech is not lower than that of native speakers.<n>We examine detectors from three separate families and find no systematic bias against non-native speakers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T15:31:24Z)
• Stress-testing Machine Generated Text Detection: Shifting Language Models Writing Style to Fool Detectors [4.7713095161046555]
  We present a pipeline to test the resilience of state-of-the-art MGT detectors to linguistically informed adversarial attacks.<n>We fine-tune language models to shift the MGT style toward human-written text (HWT)<n>This exploits the detectors' reliance on stylistic clues, making new generations more challenging to detect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T12:33:30Z)
• Your Language Model Can Secretly Write Like Humans: Contrastive Paraphrase Attacks on LLM-Generated Text Detectors [65.27124213266491]
  We propose textbfContrastive textbfParaphrase textbfAttack (CoPA), a training-free method that effectively deceives text detectors.<n>CoPA constructs an auxiliary machine-like word distribution as a contrast to the human-like distribution generated by large language models.<n>Our theoretical analysis suggests the superiority of the proposed attack.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T10:08:39Z)
• ExaGPT: Example-Based Machine-Generated Text Detection for Human Interpretability [62.285407189502216]
  Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions. We introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process. We show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior powerful detectors by up to +40.9 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T01:15:07Z)
• Group-Adaptive Threshold Optimization for Robust AI-Generated Text Detection [58.419940585826744]
  We introduce FairOPT, an algorithm for group-specific threshold optimization for probabilistic AI-text detectors.<n>We partitioned data into subgroups based on attributes (e.g., text length and writing style) and implemented FairOPT to learn decision thresholds for each group to reduce discrepancy.<n>Our framework paves the way for more robust classification in AI-generated content detection via post-processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T21:58:48Z)
• A Practical Examination of AI-Generated Text Detectors for Large Language Models [25.919278893876193]
  Machine-generated content detectors claim to identify such text under various conditions and from any language model. This paper critically evaluates these claims by assessing several popular detectors on a range of domains, datasets, and models that these detectors have not previously encountered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T15:56:11Z)
• SilverSpeak: Evading AI-Generated Text Detectors using Homoglyphs [0.0]
  Homoglyph-based attacks can effectively circumvent state-of-the-art AI-generated text detectors. Our findings demonstrate that homoglyph-based attacks can effectively circumvent state-of-the-art detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T06:07:32Z)
• The Impact of Prompts on Zero-Shot Detection of AI-Generated Text [4.337364406035291]
  In chat-based applications, users commonly input prompts and utilize the AI-generated texts. We introduce an evaluative framework to empirically analyze the impact of prompts on the detection accuracy of AI-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T11:33:34Z)
• Hidding the Ghostwriters: An Adversarial Evaluation of AI-Generated Student Essay Detection [29.433764586753956]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in text generation tasks. The utilization of these models carries inherent risks, including but not limited to plagiarism, the dissemination of fake news, and issues in educational exercises. This paper aims to bridge this gap by constructing AIG-ASAP, an AI-generated student essay dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T08:11:56Z)
• DEMASQ: Unmasking the ChatGPT Wordsmith [63.8746084667206]
  We propose an effective ChatGPT detector named DEMASQ, which accurately identifies ChatGPT-generated content. Our method addresses two critical factors: (i) the distinct biases in text composition observed in human- and machine-generated content and (ii) the alterations made by humans to evade previous detection methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T21:13:05Z)
• OUTFOX: LLM-Generated Essay Detection Through In-Context Learning with Adversarially Generated Examples [44.118047780553006]
  OUTFOX is a framework that improves the robustness of LLM-generated-text detectors by allowing both the detector and the attacker to consider each other's output. Experiments show that the proposed detector improves the detection performance on the attacker-generated texts by up to +41.3 points F1-score. The detector shows a state-of-the-art detection performance: up to 96.9 points F1-score, beating existing detectors on non-attacked texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T17:40:47Z)
• Is ChatGPT Involved in Texts? Measure the Polish Ratio to Detect ChatGPT-Generated Text [48.36706154871577]
  We introduce a novel dataset termed HPPT (ChatGPT-polished academic abstracts) It diverges from extant corpora by comprising pairs of human-written and ChatGPT-polished abstracts instead of purely ChatGPT-generated texts. We also propose the "Polish Ratio" method, an innovative measure of the degree of modification made by ChatGPT compared to the original human-written text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T06:38:37Z)
• Evade ChatGPT Detectors via A Single Space [17.07852413707166]
  Existing detectors are built upon the assumption that there are distributional gaps between human-generated and AI-generated text. We find that detectors do not effectively discriminate the semantic and stylistic gaps between human-generated and AI-generated text. We propose the SpaceInfi strategy to evade detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T18:48:28Z)
• To ChatGPT, or not to ChatGPT: That is the question! [78.407861566006]
  This study provides a comprehensive and contemporary assessment of the most recent techniques in ChatGPT detection. We have curated a benchmark dataset consisting of prompts from ChatGPT and humans, including diverse questions from medical, open Q&A, and finance domains. Our evaluation results demonstrate that none of the existing methods can effectively detect ChatGPT-generated content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T03:04:28Z)
• Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense [56.077252790310176]
  We present a paraphrase generation model (DIPPER) that can paraphrase paragraphs, condition on surrounding context, and control lexical diversity and content reordering. Using DIPPER to paraphrase text generated by three large language models (including GPT3.5-davinci-003) successfully evades several detectors, including watermarking. We introduce a simple defense that relies on retrieving semantically-similar generations and must be maintained by a language model API provider.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T16:29:27Z)
• Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? [54.670136179857344]
  Unregulated use of LLMs can potentially lead to malicious consequences such as plagiarism, generating fake news, spamming, etc. Recent works attempt to tackle this problem either using certain model signatures present in the generated text outputs or by applying watermarking techniques. In this paper, we show that these detectors are not reliable in practical scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:53:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.