Investigating Wit, Creativity, and Detectability of Large Language Models in Domain-Specific Writing Style Adaptation of Reddit's Showerthoughts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01660v1
• Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 18:29:58 GMT
• Title: Investigating Wit, Creativity, and Detectability of Large Language Models in Domain-Specific Writing Style Adaptation of Reddit's Showerthoughts
• Authors: Tolga Buz, Benjamin Frost, Nikola Genchev, Moritz Schneider, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Gerard de Melo,
• Abstract summary: We investigate the ability of LLMs to replicate human writing style in short, creative texts in the domain of Showerthoughts. We measure human preference on the texts across the specific dimensions that account for the quality of creative, witty texts. We conclude that human evaluators rate the generated texts slightly worse on average regarding their creative quality, but they are unable to reliably distinguish between human-written and AI-generated texts.
• Score: 17.369951848952265
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the ability to generate content that is difficult or impossible to distinguish from human writing. We investigate the ability of differently-sized LLMs to replicate human writing style in short, creative texts in the domain of Showerthoughts, thoughts that may occur during mundane activities. We compare GPT-2 and GPT-Neo fine-tuned on Reddit data as well as GPT-3.5 invoked in a zero-shot manner, against human-authored texts. We measure human preference on the texts across the specific dimensions that account for the quality of creative, witty texts. Additionally, we compare the ability of humans versus fine-tuned RoBERTa classifiers to detect AI-generated texts. We conclude that human evaluators rate the generated texts slightly worse on average regarding their creative quality, but they are unable to reliably distinguish between human-written and AI-generated texts. We further provide a dataset for creative, witty text generation based on Reddit Showerthoughts posts.

Related papers

• AI as Humanity's Salieri: Quantifying Linguistic Creativity of Language Models via Systematic Attribution of Machine Text against Web Text [53.15652021126663]
  We present CREATIVITY INDEX as the first step to quantify the linguistic creativity of a text. To compute CREATIVITY INDEX efficiently, we introduce DJ SEARCH, a novel dynamic programming algorithm. Experiments reveal that the CREATIVITY INDEX of professional human authors is on average 66.2% higher than that of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:55:01Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: The Role of Human Judgement in AI Generated Text Evaluation [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content. We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• ChatGPT as a commenter to the news: can LLMs generate human-like opinions? [3.0309690768567754]
  We investigate what extent GPT-3.5 can generate human-like comments on Dutch news articles. We analyze human likeness across multiple prompting techniques. We find that our fine-tuned BERT models can easily distinguish human-written comments from GPT-3.5 generated comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T15:46:36Z)
• Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Texts [22.852855047237153]
  We show that the average intrinsic dimensionality of fluent texts in a natural language is hovering around the value $9$ for several alphabet-based languages and around $7$ for Chinese. This property allows us to build a score-based artificial text detector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T18:38:04Z)
• AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays [66.36541161082856]
  ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users. This study compares human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-24T12:58:28Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• 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)
• ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text [2.0378492681344493]
  We study whether a machine learning model can be effectively trained to accurately distinguish between original human and seemingly human (that is, ChatGPT-generated) text. We employ an explainable artificial intelligence framework to gain insight into the reasoning behind the model trained to differentiate between ChatGPT-generated and human-generated text. Our study focuses on short online reviews, conducting two experiments comparing human-generated and ChatGPT-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-30T08:06:08Z)
• 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)

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.