The Imitation Game: Detecting Human and AI-Generated Texts in the Era of ChatGPT and BARD

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12166v2
• Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 01:26:48 GMT
• Title: The Imitation Game: Detecting Human and AI-Generated Texts in the Era of ChatGPT and BARD
• Authors: Kadhim Hayawi, Sakib Shahriar, Sujith Samuel Mathew
• Abstract summary: We introduce a novel dataset of human-written and AI-generated texts in different genres. We employ several machine learning models to classify the texts. Results demonstrate the efficacy of these models in discerning between human and AI-generated text.
• Score: 3.2228025627337864
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The potential of artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language models (LLMs) holds considerable promise in revolutionizing education, research, and practice. However, distinguishing between human-written and AI-generated text has become a significant task. This paper presents a comparative study, introducing a novel dataset of human-written and LLM-generated texts in different genres: essays, stories, poetry, and Python code. We employ several machine learning models to classify the texts. Results demonstrate the efficacy of these models in discerning between human and AI-generated text, despite the dataset's limited sample size. However, the task becomes more challenging when classifying GPT-generated text, particularly in story writing. The results indicate that the models exhibit superior performance in binary classification tasks, such as distinguishing human-generated text from a specific LLM, compared to the more complex multiclass tasks that involve discerning among human-generated and multiple LLMs. Our findings provide insightful implications for AI text detection while our dataset paves the way for future research in this evolving area.

Related papers

• GigaCheck: Detecting LLM-generated Content [72.27323884094953]
  In this work, we investigate the task of generated text detection by proposing the GigaCheck. Our research explores two approaches: (i) distinguishing human-written texts from LLM-generated ones, and (ii) detecting LLM-generated intervals in Human-Machine collaborative texts. Specifically, we use a fine-tuned general-purpose LLM in conjunction with a DETR-like detection model, adapted from computer vision, to localize artificially generated intervals within text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T08:30:55Z)
• Detecting Machine-Generated Long-Form Content with Latent-Space Variables [54.07946647012579]
  Existing zero-shot detectors primarily focus on token-level distributions, which are vulnerable to real-world domain shifts. We propose a more robust method that incorporates abstract elements, such as event transitions, as key deciding factors to detect machine versus human texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T18:42:09Z)
• Differentiating between human-written and AI-generated texts using linguistic features automatically extracted from an online computational tool [0.0]
  This study aims to investigate how various linguistic components are represented in both types of texts, assessing the ability of AI to emulate human writing. Despite AI-generated texts appearing to mimic human speech, the results revealed significant differences across multiple linguistic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T05:37:09Z)
• CUDRT: Benchmarking the Detection of Human vs. Large Language Models Generated Texts [10.027843402296678]
  This paper constructs a comprehensive benchmark in both Chinese and English to evaluate mainstream AI-generated text detectors. We categorize text generation into five distinct operations: Create, Update, Delete, Rewrite, and Translate. For each CUDRT category, we have developed extensive datasets to thoroughly assess detector performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T12:43:40Z)
• Spotting AI's Touch: Identifying LLM-Paraphrased Spans in Text [61.22649031769564]
  We propose a novel framework, paraphrased text span detection (PTD) PTD aims to identify paraphrased text spans within a text. We construct a dedicated dataset, PASTED, for paraphrased text span detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T11:22:27Z)
• Threads of Subtlety: Detecting Machine-Generated Texts Through Discourse Motifs [19.073560504913356]
  The line between human-crafted and machine-generated texts has become increasingly blurred. This paper delves into the inquiry of identifying discernible and unique linguistic properties in texts that were written by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T11:20:30Z)
• Beyond Turing: A Comparative Analysis of Approaches for Detecting Machine-Generated Text [1.919654267936118]
  Traditional shallow learning, Language Model (LM) fine-tuning, and Multilingual Model fine-tuning are evaluated. Results reveal considerable differences in performance across methods. This study paves the way for future research aimed at creating robust and highly discriminative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-21T06:23:38Z)
• MAGE: Machine-generated Text Detection in the Wild [82.70561073277801]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved human-level text generation, emphasizing the need for effective AI-generated text detection. We build a comprehensive testbed by gathering texts from diverse human writings and texts generated by different LLMs. Despite challenges, the top-performing detector can identify 86.54% out-of-domain texts generated by a new LLM, indicating the feasibility for application scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:13:29Z)
• On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detection [76.55825911221434]
  We argue that as machine-generated text approximates human-like quality, the sample size needed for detection bounds increases. We test various state-of-the-art text generators, including GPT-2, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama, Llama-2-13B-Chat-HF, and Llama-2-70B-Chat-HF, against detectors, including oBERTa-Large/Base-Detector, GPTZero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T17:47:39Z)
• Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries Between Human-Written and Machine-Generated Text [23.622347443796183]
  We study a more realistic setting where text begins as human-written and transitions to being generated by state-of-the-art neural language models. We show that, while annotators often struggle at this task, there is substantial variance in annotator skill and that given proper incentives, annotators can improve at this task over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-24T06:40:25Z)
• How much do language models copy from their training data? Evaluating linguistic novelty in text generation using RAVEN [63.79300884115027]
  Current language models can generate high-quality text. Are they simply copying text they have seen before, or have they learned generalizable linguistic abstractions? We introduce RAVEN, a suite of analyses for assessing the novelty of generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-18T04:07:09Z)

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.