What will it take until people get it through their thick skulls that ChatGPT isn't intelligent, doesn't learn and is a tool that can only generate plausible gibberish.

Using the same tools to detect such gibberish will give you more gibberish.

Garbage in, Garbage out has been true since the difference engine, it's just that today the garbage smells like English words, still garbage, but not knowledge, intelligence or anything like it.

The machine learning approach for building models, used to produce so called large language models like ChatGPT is also used to create weather forecasting models that are bigger, better and orders of magnitude faster than available until now.

The tools have changed life, but I'm unconvinced that it's a suitable, sustainable or realistic way to create artificial intelligence, despite claims to the contrary.

I don’t just want AI news to fail, I want it to take the web-scraping trending post news bots down with it.

Bring investigative journalists back to news media.

AI Detector Companies:

but ai has electrolytes!

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Originality costs money, but Gasuras started running her work through other AI detectors before submitting to make sure she wasn’t getting dinged by mistake.

When ChatGPT set the world on fire a year and a half ago, it sparked a feverish search for ways to catch people trying to pass off AI text as their own writing.

Alex Cui, chief technology officer for the AI detection company GPTZero, said detectors have meaningful shortcomings, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Mark, another Ohio-based copywriter who asked that we withhold his name to avoid professional repercussions, said he had to take work doing maintenance at a local store after an AI detector cost him his job.

It’s true that the internet is being flooded by low-effort content farms that pump out junky AI articles in an effort to game search results, get clicks, and make ad money from those eyeballs.

For example, Gillham said “we advise against the tool being used within academia, and strongly recommend against being used for disciplinary action.” He explained the risk of false positives is too high for students, because they submit a small number of essays throughout a school year, but the volume of work produced by a professional writer means the algorithm has more chances to get it right.

The original article contains 2,024 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 89%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!