In a quasi-related issue, one of the WSJ columnists put Hardeeās chatbot drive-through ordering system through 30 tests, and it apparently did a pretty good job, only 3 had to be referred to humans for response.
2 Likes
Can you link to the announcement?
It would give those of us out of the (hyper fast) loop a bit of context 
1 Like
2 Likes
Perfect, thank you @RGJ
It seems itās specifically about this commitment:
So I think this really is up to the companies to facilitate. But watermarking text is fairly impossible, like @merefield mentioned above.
What would you expect Discourse to do in this case @MikeNolan ? If a user simply copy-pastes AI-generated text, there is no way for Discourse to know about it (apart from running spam and AI-detectors), so I donāt really see how this specific agreement changes anything for now.
1 Like
User-pasted AI-generated content is probably not something Discourse can do much with, as it is likely indistinguishable from human-generated content (aside from possibly being better-written), but if you use an official Discourse AI plugin, perhaps Discourse can do something about watermarking or otherwise denoting what it generates?
3 Likes
Ah in that way, yes, I can see how that makes sense
1 Like
We started work on this, for example this very own topic summary is watermarked:
Summarization UI work is the one who got most love, so itās where we already are close to the final form and have this setup. Others will follow.
3 Likes
Maybe a bit semantic but two properties of digital watermarks are that they are hidden to the casual viewer, and hard to remove.
2 Likes
I would think that OPEN acknowledgement of AI-generated content is important, both for text and for images.
Hidden digital signatures are more useful for things like image copyright enforcement.
Iām active on the Ugly Hedghog photography forum, whether or not AI generated or modified images qualify as photographs is a hotly discussed topic there. (Some AI-generated images have won photography contests.)
1 Like
The problem weāre discussing right now is that people with malicious intent will use AI to generate things and then remove the acknowledgement and try to stage it as human generated content. That implies the requirement of an origin ātagā thatās hard to remove.
2 Likes
The intent isnāt necessarily malicious, but it is less than honest.
Good luck finding a way to ātagā AI generated text that canāt be overcome with something possibly as rudimentary as cut-and-paste.
1 Like
Could zero-width characters be used for that?
1 Like
No, those can easily be removed by passing the content through a filter that only keeps normal alphabetical characters. Watermarking text is very, very hard. You basically cannot do it at the character representation level.
This blog post from Scott Aaronson explains a bit how it could work. Scroll down to the āMy Projects at OpenAIā section. The method outlined there is copy/paste proof @MikeNolan
2 Likes
Thanks, thatās interesting:
My main project so far has been a tool for statistically watermarking the outputs of a text model like GPT. Basically, whenever GPT generates some long text, we want there to be an otherwise unnoticeable secret signal in its choices of words, which you can use to prove later that, yes, this came from GPT. We want it to be much harder to take a GPT output and pass it off as if it came from a human. This could be helpful for preventing academic plagiarism, obviously, but also, for example, mass generation of propagandaā¦ Or impersonating someoneās writing style in order to incriminate them. These are all things one might want to make harder, right?
ā¦
So then to watermark, instead of selecting the next token randomly, the idea will be to select it pseudorandomly, using a cryptographic pseudorandom function, whose key is known only to OpenAI. That wonāt make any detectable difference to the end user, assuming the end user canāt distinguish the pseudorandom numbers from truly random ones.
2 Likes
One of my concerns about trying to identify AI generated writing is that it will accidentally target well written human generated text.
2 Likes
well-written human generated text seems to be the exception on many forums. :sigh:
3 Likes
I just go back to motivation.
If you identify bad intent, ban or suspend.
If itās well written, well intentioned text with facts that bear out, leave it?
What if the userās first language is not English and theyāve used ChatGPT to refine their grammar?
2 Likes
btw, hereās how I preface AI Topic Summaries:
(eek CSS tweak needed!)
1 Like
OK, Iām concerned it could target my posts
I think so. I donāt see a problem with people using AI to help compose posts assuming thereās an actual human being making the decision as to whether or not the AI generated text is worthy of posting.
1 Like
There are a host of tools that can help improve grammar, I donāt know if ChatGPT is better than the rest of the bunch.
Improving grammar is a somewhat different issue than generating āoriginalā content, though. The AI engines are starting to be targeted by the content owners who want to be reimbursed for using their material to train the AI engine.
1 Like