61
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
61 points (93.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43811 readers
884 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Funnily enough: revealing plagiarism. Or even just judging the originality of a given text. Train it to assign an "originality value" between 0 (I've seen this exact wording before) and 1 (this whole text is new to me) to help universities, scientific journals or even just high schools judge the amount of novelty a proposed publication really provides.
Recently I've seen some discussion surrounding this. Apparently, this method also gives lots of false positives, but at least it should be able to help teachers narrow it down which papers may require further investigation.
Recent studies show it doesn't work at all, and has likely caused irreparable harm to people whose academics have been judged by all of the services out there. It has finally been admitted that it didn't work and likely won't work.
Well yeah that approach would work if you train it on one model but that doesn't mean it would work on another model, but for the normal user who uses chatgpt it is probably enough to detect it at least 80-90% of the times