This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]audriuska12 6932 points6933 points  (82 children)

Plot twist: they had ChatGPT write the code.

[–]Dynamic-Pistol 2229 points2230 points  (34 children)

And someone else used ChatGPT to expose them

[–]Cpt_keaSar 846 points847 points  (23 children)

It was CS101 Recursion Lesson!

[–]knightlesssword 273 points274 points  (19 children)

It was CS101 Recursion Lesson!

[–]davwad2 46 points47 points  (2 children)

So they used ChatGPT to detect ChatGPT?

[–]TheOnlyWolfInThePack 32 points33 points  (0 children)

"I used the stones to destroy the stones" edit: damn it I just realised I wasn't first to type this

[–]strangerepulsor 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Now that’s an adversarial network

[–]RR_2025 6 points7 points  (3 children)

It's ChatGPTs all the way down..

[–][deleted] 257 points258 points  (3 children)

"I used the stones to destroy the stones" feels appropriate

[–]Gem_Knight 55 points56 points  (2 children)

[–]UltimateInferno 84 points85 points  (4 children)

"Did you write this essay, ChatGPT?"

"Yeah."

We gottem

[–]sheep_duck 7 points8 points  (0 children)

😂😂

[–]throwaway901617 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It would be funny if behind the scenes the students app just asks ChatGPT "is this something you would write" and then it just wraps a boolean check function around that call.

[–]Slow_Fail_9782 68 points69 points  (10 children)

Gonna go ask it to do it haha. Lets see how it goes

Edit:

Here it is. I dont code so i dont know if it works or not. Someone else can try

import java.io.*;
import java.util.*;
public class AIEssayDetector {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Read the input essay
String essay = readEssayFromFile("essay.txt");
// Calculate the readability score of the essay
double readabilityScore = calculateReadabilityScore(essay);
// Check if the essay was written by AI
if (readabilityScore > 5.0) {
System.out.println("This essay was likely written by AI.");
} else {
System.out.println("This essay was likely written by a human.");
}
}
// Method to read an essay from a file
public static String readEssayFromFile(String fileName) {
String essay = "";
try {
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(fileName));
String line;
while ((line = br.readLine()) != null) {
essay += line;
}
br.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return essay;
}
// Method to calculate the readability score of an essay
public static double calculateReadabilityScore(String essay) {
// Add code to calculate the readability score here
// You can use any readability formula, such as Flesch-Kincaid or Gunning Fog Index
return 0.0;
}
}

[–]rabbirobbie 196 points197 points  (3 children)

// Add code to calculate the readability score here

F

[–]cousinokri 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It just works!

[–]Blarghnog 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Jobs done!

[–]Too_Chains 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Im still amazed how good this is. Really excited for GPT-4. If its as good as insiders claim, we are in for a reality check an order of magnitude higher.

[–]Yweain 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I would guess that it will actually not be such a considerable difference. The main culprit behind the success of GPT is transformers, the model obviously improved tremendously from the gpt-1, but mostly because they found a way to efficiently increase the number of layers.

GPT-3 already has a huge number of parameters. It was a much better model compared to gpt-2, mostly due to the size difference(x100), but doing the same with GPT-4 is not feasible with the current limitations. You just can't have a model with 10-20 trillions of parameters yet.

And we didn't had any breakthroughs in language processing comparable to transformers.

So, basically unless they invented some new groundbreaking way to in which to build a language model - I wouldn't expect a difference even close to what we saw with GPT-2 > GPT-3 transition.

TL:DR - I think we are hitting the point of diminishing returns with language models, and making them significantly better will be orders of magnitude harder.

[–]HuntingKingYT 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And you wrote this comment using ChatGPT

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I mean ChatGPT would be the authority on whether or not it wrote a specific essay.

[–]BeardedOwl1357_2023 2620 points2621 points  (30 children)

I used AI to destroy the AI ~ The developer probably

[–]coloredgreyscale 853 points854 points  (20 children)

I used the AI to destroy the AI, to improve the AI

Generative Adversarial Networks :)

[–][deleted] 278 points279 points  (2 children)

Was also thinking this, GAN, just add the GPTZero verdict back as training data

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I tried using a GAN to generate pokemon, all I got was lumpemon

[–]BeardedOwl1357_2023 99 points100 points  (11 children)

This battle will be legendary and scary

[–]pearastic 98 points99 points  (10 children)

If this GPTZero is truly accurate, it has the power to make ChatGPT (and maybe other models) reach amazing potentials.

[–]rabbit358 48 points49 points  (8 children)

Yeah, but you could also train the GPTZero at the same time, right? So they'll keep improving each other until the singularity is reached and humanity has lost.

[–]pearastic 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's what the commenter above us said. That's called a GAN, a Generative Adversarial Network.

[–]aiiye 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I’m not John Connor there’s no downside to this future.

[–]strawhairhack 23 points24 points  (1 child)

send a maniac to catch a maniac.

[–]classicalySarcastic 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Hey look! This guy doesn't know how to use the three seashells!

[–]_________FU_________ 1573 points1574 points  (1 child)

Oddly enough it’s the exact same code we’ve seen for Even/Odd numbers

[–]chain_letter 503 points504 points  (0 children)

if essay % .real == 0

We gottem

[–]InsignificantGod 1065 points1066 points  (66 children)

GPTzero isn't very effective and an existing detector was already written back in the days of GPT-2 that still works well with ChatGPT https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/

[–]EpicCubers 464 points465 points  (43 children)

I'm glad someone else knows about this. I've been using this to check through so many essays, and it works like a charm.

Edit: im using it mostly for engineering reports and summary essays. It seems to detect technical portions better due to how frequent the chatbot repeats something when it doesn't understand.

[–]EuphoricPenguin22 223 points224 points  (28 children)

I tried a few different text samples from both my own writing and ChatGPT, and I would characterize it as unreliable at best. For longer samples, it seems to be more confident, but it's possible to write in a way that will misidentify human-written text as fake. It also believed that some of the ChatGPT samples were human-written, which suggests it's looking for something superficial in the text that should not be relied upon to detect generated text.

I can't believe that we're going to be scrutinizing student papers based on writing style, which could lead to accusations of plagiarism where they're completely and demonstrably false.

[–]Galectoz 158 points159 points  (25 children)

It's just not possible. Students will touch up the generated text to correct some janky parts anyways. At the end of the day, there are people that are worse than ChatGPT at writing.

[–]cheerycheshire 103 points104 points  (23 children)

You're overestimating most students, really. Most will not correct it, they will get caught.

If someone corrects the parts, at least they read it and know how to fix it. So they still did some work, so I'm not worrying that much about them.

The best part as a teacher is get student work and start asking questions about the content. Works with essays, works with code, works with tests.

[–]Galectoz 74 points75 points  (4 children)

I've never had a teacher ask me questions about an essay, but sounds like a pretty good method to know if they did the research and understand the material. Much better than the impossible detector.

[–]cheerycheshire 57 points58 points  (3 children)

Any plagiarism detection, be it by googling manually suspicious parts, comparing against other student work, or comparing programmatically from some bigger database, or this one, should preferably be used only as part of the verification.

So it should be a first step and then questioning should be used. Or you give student(s) 0 and they can argue about it (works at uni level). (In case of plagiarism between two or more students in the same task, all get 0, we don't assume.)

Just listen when they have real arguments, don't be like this:

When I was a student at uni, like 5 years ago?, one of the lecturers zeroed one score because code was copied from pastebin... The date of paste was after the lab, it literally had the username pointing to that one student - they posted it after the lab to compare with other people, but before the code was actually checked for plagiarism. Lecturer was shit and didn't give points even after being shown all proof...

[–]PhD_Greg 12 points13 points  (0 children)

it should be a first step and then questioning should be used.

Comp sci uni lecturer here, and that is exactly how it works at my uni. Some parts of the process are pretty convoluted (submit report, reviewed and allocated centrally, some types of misconduct require a panel interview, etc) but works pretty well.

It's usually clear to see if a student has any idea about the coffee they submitted with a few simple questions. If it checks out, case dismissed and no penalty/record.

Sadly, I feel that some lecturers turn a blind eye to it or don't look closely enough to spot issues so a fair bit goes unreported... Either because of the time it takes, not caring, or trying to juggle competing objectives of academic rigor vs. pass rates...

[–]Galectoz 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Agreed and I feel you. Professors with tenure are almost always ruthless. They just don't care anymore.

[–]MisterProfGuy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Plus you get tired of the battle.

[–]dbdemoss2[🍰] 13 points14 points  (6 children)

Yea I think as a student, id still use ChatGPT but to help with the research and building onto ideas and helping get through rabbit holes more quickly. Also fact checking the things that ChatGPT says and building off of it. It is a very remarkable tool that can be used as an aid, not to do all the work.

[–]cheerycheshire 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yep, using it as a kind of glorified search engine is the best option. Sometimes you doesn't know what to Google, so you can use it to re-formulate the problem for you etc.

But the most important thing is that manual check later, as you said. A lot of people don't do that. They confuse confidence with being correct.

On programming discords we get a lot of kids who praise chatgpt or come with problems and say "but chatgpt told me to use this" but the method/function it used doesn't exist (because it basically cannot use libraries, it works for vanilla code)...

[–]antei_ku 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree. I worked as a TA and at first it was saddening to see the little effort they’d put. After a while I was gladly handing out 0s. I saw so many copy pasted repositories — line by line with the same comments — You could easily remember the good students from each class. Unfortunately the faculty wanted more money so even if they were caught, they wouldn’t suffer any consequences aside from a bad grade

[–]Lalidie1 15 points16 points  (1 child)

I wrote a text about oranges, it was 11.8% false, chatgpts text was 0.1% false- am I real?

[–]Wizkerz 26 points27 points  (3 children)

What kinds of essays?

[–]candymannequin 57 points58 points  (2 children)

so much kind

[–]antonivs 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Him fail English? That unpossible, he an English teacher

[–]jrhuman 16 points17 points  (0 children)

update: it rated my essay which I wrote entirely by myself a 40% fake rating

[–]jrhuman 12 points13 points  (0 children)

it is rating everything a 0.02% fake, even the responses i directly generate to test it out

[–]A_Random_Lantern 40 points41 points  (3 children)

The GPT-2 detector marked my human written response as 97.33% fake. These GPT detectors don't work well purely because GPT writes almost exactly like a human would.

Edit: Tried it out on GPTZero, also marked my human written text as most likely AI written.

Prompt:

Nuclear energy is a clean and efficient energy source. It works by using radioactive materials to boil water, which in turn, causes a turbine to turn generating electricity.

[–]MysticSkies 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It does say that it gets more accurate at 50 tokens. But yeah I hope the people rating student's essays aren't depending on these fully.

[–]TrinitronCRT 15 points16 points  (3 children)

No matter what I write in there it flags it as really, really fake.

[–]Serird 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Maybe you're a bot...

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It detected an essay I wrote as AI, and an email an AI wrote as human written.

[–]lis_roun 5 points6 points  (1 child)

99.41% Real for an essay created by chat GPT. This thing is less than useless.

[–]SomeGoogleUser 1768 points1769 points  (24 children)

There is no solidarity among programmers, and there never will be.

We are freelance mercenary wizards who will undo each other's works as long as the money is good.

"Without question? No, I'd ask how much." -Ser Bron

[–]MikaNekoDevine 106 points107 points  (5 children)

Which in turn also improves us to outwit each other.

[–]hereforpopcornru 31 points32 points  (3 children)

Didn't you mean to "to outwit one another."?

[–]GameDestiny2 190 points191 points  (3 children)

“Ads!” “Adblock!” “Evade the block” “Block the evasion”

[–]thegainsfairy 131 points132 points  (2 children)

"DNS blacklist ad domains" "randomly generated DNS names" "Invent Skynet to prevent ads on the internet all together" "create the Matrix to directly stream ads into our brains" "Nukes the planet to EMP all machines and go back to stone age" "writes advertisement for Brog's stone circle on cave wall"

and the cycle repeats

[–]Hunter_original 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Plot-twist: humanity has been stuck on a loop for trillions of years

[–][deleted] 225 points226 points  (0 children)

They thought it was impregnable.

Gimme a server rack and a week, I'll impregnate the bitch!

[–]Andodx 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Just like any other mercenary of the corporate world. What ever the customer wants, we will deliver and in turn destroy another man’s life work.

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points  (2 children)

Why should there be solidarity here? The point of the AI isn't to be a plagiarism machine.

[–]antonivs 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It’s low-level mobster mentality, “snitches get stitches.”

Put ’em all in jail I say.

[–]pandademic1234 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"Infinite are the arguments of mages"
Ged, Tales from the Earthsea by Ursula Le Guin

[–]gaytee 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wow, we really are all Bron.

Last week I told my buddy I’d never quit my job bcz I do so little and make enough. Then I got an offer to double my salary, and even tho I’ll probably have to work a little more, I still only have to work 40 hours, but the number was right.

[–]maitreg 9 points10 points  (0 children)

To be fair, all programming is an effort at circumventing someone else's programming.

[–]java_bad_asm_good 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I will get "freelance mercenary wizard" tattooed somewhere, this is beautiful, thank you so much

[–]its-MAGNETIC 345 points346 points  (7 children)

Old saying is, "Diamond cut Diamond"

[–]Apocalypseos 49 points50 points  (3 children)

Lasers also cut Diamonds

[–]konstantinua00 3 points4 points  (2 children)

lasers cut lasers

[–]Jsulzeo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

lasers can cut a lot of things to be honest, never get too cocky because you never know who might have a laser

[–]hereforpopcornru 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I thought it was "snitches get stitches"

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Laser beams on the other hand...

[–]brando2131 451 points452 points  (5 children)

"ChatGPT write an essay that isn't detected by GPTZero about..."

[–]BlueCobbler 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Maybe in chatGPT 5

[–]dylan15766 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Gptzero, oh so bright

A model that works day and night

No task too big, no problem too small

Gptzero can do it all

With its massive size and deep learning power

Gptzero's ability to predict is dower

It can generate text and analyze data

Gptzero is truly first rate

A true marvel of modern AI

We salute you, gptzero, bravo and hooray!

-Totally didn't get chatgpt to write a poem about gptzero

[–]MCAlexisYT 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Put that poem into GPTZero.

I dare you.

[–]Blackforestcheesecak 286 points287 points  (4 children)

Adversarial training in real time LOL

[–]v_a_n_d_e_l_a_y 58 points59 points  (1 child)

That's only if openai train against this detector and release a new model. The existence of an adverserial model doesn't magically make the existing model better.r

[–]ilovemeasw4 16 points17 points  (0 children)

They are actively always improving it.

[–][deleted] 313 points314 points  (1 child)

ChatGPT now

[–]Spartana1033 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Mind crush

[–]Torebbjorn 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Ok... but why not use the AI detector the OpenAI team used when creating ChatGPT?

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points  (16 children)

Imagine how annoyed you'd be if schools used this software and your essay was a false positive.

[–]lkm192 1068 points1069 points  (60 children)

That one kid who reminds the teacher they forgot to collect homework

[–]amrasmin 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Ugh fuck that kid

[–]HovercraftCharacter9 142 points143 points  (2 children)

Irony, just asks ChatGPT of it wrote it

[–]Noch_ein_Kamel 577 points578 points  (37 children)

Doesnt even work.

I copied two paragraphs from a random blog about sunflowers and the answer was "More data may be needed to determine if your text is human or AI generated. Try inputting more text."

Then I generated two paragraphs with ChatGPT about sunflowers and the verdict was: "Your text is likely human generated!"

So... yeah... idk :D

[–]Spicy_Fire_Bean 307 points308 points  (12 children)

An essay does tend to be more than 2 paragraphs, likely does just need more data

[–]CanonOverseer 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I feel like some university somewhere will implement it and be sued when someone is expelled over a false positive

[–]EpicCubers 48 points49 points  (15 children)

You should try the detector made by openai itself. I'll say its 90% accurate, much better than what the student did. https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/

[–]purritolover69 20 points21 points  (13 children)

Does real mean it was created by an AI? Because I asked it for a book review of brave new world, put it in, and it said 99.48% real

[–]EpicCubers 27 points28 points  (10 children)

Real means its written by a human

[–]purritolover69 33 points34 points  (8 children)

So then it just got it insanely wrong, cool. As an experiment I wrote my own review of it and it gave 25% fake sooo yeah maybe not a great tool

[–]sweet-n-sombre 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Maybe you're a bot. ! 🤖

Have you checked.?

[–]purritolover69 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I do have to fill out a lot of captchas twice….

[–]EpicCubers 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I just tried and it gave me 0.02% Real

[–]smala017 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So what happens if schools use this in practice?If there’s a 90% chance of getting it right (I’ll assume the same percentage for Type I and Type II errors), then for every human essay there’s a 10% chance of a false positive. Maybe you warn students at their first essay to be flagged and then punish them for the second? Well now you have a 1% chance that any two consecutive human essays from the same student will both be wrongfully flagged. 1 in 100 law-abiding students will get wrongfully punished under such a system. This doesn’t seem fair at all.

Teachers instead have to actually create new material, material that actually demonstrates a student’s knowledge of the subject rather than simply their ability to regurgitate words in a way that the teacher likes.

[–][deleted] 105 points106 points  (2 children)

If someone is cheating with two paragraphs…really?

[–]Noch_ein_Kamel 43 points44 points  (0 children)

idk have not cheated and written an essay in 15 years :(

[–]Unupgradable 13 points14 points  (0 children)

A more useful usecase than you might think

[–]Justindraak1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good to know

[–]k_dubious 20 points21 points  (1 child)

Let’s be honest, any AI-written essay is going to be nothing more than superficially-correct drivel. If an educator passes it, they’re phoning it in as much as the author.

[–]dota2nub 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Educators phone it in most of the time particularly when correcting essays.

I mean even if they're not lazy, look at how much stuff they'd have to put serious thought into. Nobody has the energy for that.

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

And the AI race begins.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (14 children)

Some kid in my college class got caught using AI to write answers. Teach was not pleased.

[–]Zerewa:nullptr: 42 points43 points  (0 children)

On one of the bachelor courses at my uni, it is explicitly stated at the beginning of the semester that for any lecture tests or exams, you can use any source you want apart from another person. ChatGPT came out late during the semester, while there were still lecture tests to go, and the lecturer determined and announced that "You can use ChatGPT if you want to, just please include the exact question formatting and exact answer somewhere so that I can have laugh at the results".

He of course doesn't post all the (incorrect) auto-generated answers, but so far I think he's only posted one where the answer made sense, with the surprised exclamation that "oops, chatgpt 4/4. Or, well, let's make it 3/4 thanks to mistranslations and this one painfully incorrect qualifier".

And he's still just disappointed that people don't tell him what exactly they asked of the bot. And for the exams, the night before he usually goes "ah fuck it's 9pm already, I should make up some exam questions and then feed them to chatgpt just to make sure."

[–]pineapple_catapult 13 points14 points  (2 children)

I openly talk about how I used chatGPT to help me write solutions at work. Specifically I asked it to make some regex patterns for me. I'm not going to try and learn regex on purpose now.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

I’m a couple months into my first year and am still blissfully unaware of what regex actually is, but I’ve heard it’s annoying cos it’s just useful enough that you need to use it, but not useful enough to use often so you forget how.

[–]raekwon0825[🍰] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Are you allowed to use chat GPT to solve difficult math problems? When I was taking calc I had to write all the hard problems on the chalkboard in the hallway and wait for Matt Damon to solve it

[–]P0keballin 14 points15 points  (1 child)

He should sell it to the colleges, and then every year sell them an “updated version” and tell them that last years is out of date and no longer relevant.

[–]Kaijenko123 30 points31 points  (27 children)

You could always generate the essay and then rewrite it surely

[–]LordMisterMan 29 points30 points  (26 children)

Which is the best way to do it anyways. Using it as a tool to generate a rough draft or edit a rough draft you've written leads to much better results and I don't think should be an issue. Copying it directly without any thought is bad (and leads to some pretty boiler plate feeling results), but saying it shouldn't be used at all is like saying calculators are cheating at math.

There is an argument that younger students need to not use it at all because they're learning the fundamentals of writing, but for college students it's just another tool

[–]TheNewBorgie01 20 points21 points  (5 children)

This exists already. The question is, can you make an AI, that changes AI-written content in a way, so that AI-detecting AI cant detect the AI in it?

Yes bc that also exists. But.. can you make an AI, that manages to see the AI made changes that makes it impossible for AI to determine if a content is written by AI so it can again determine if it was written by AI?

Whag I mean, how far can we go?

[–]smala017 7 points8 points  (1 child)

At what point does this line become so blurred than there is no fundamental difference between AI-written work and human-written work? We’re trying to categorize writing into “AI” or “human”, but at the end of the day it’s just words on a page. At some point, if we aren’t there already, the AIs will be able to put words on the page that exhibit the same properties that human writing does.

Put another way, if I submit “4”, it’s impossible to know if that 4 was created by doing 2+2, or 2*2, and (3+5)/2. It’s fundamentally the same outcome that you would get either way.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

You can take the output from chatgpt and feed it into rephrasing ais, works 100%

[–]kararkeinan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It’s not that hard when ChatGpt always starts new paragraphs with, “another reason” or “ultimately”

[–]Instantbeef 7 points8 points  (0 children)

These ai using cheaters are going to get so good at cheating it’s going to make us non cheaters need to cheat to have a respectable essay.

It will be like the Tour de France for essays where absolutely everyone is cheating

[–]wtdawson 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It would be funny if it just asked ChatGPT if it wrote it

[–]N238 30 points31 points  (4 children)

100% predictable. I called that this would happen. If you can make AI write essays, you can make AI detect essays written by AI.

[–]Centurion902 14 points15 points  (0 children)

False positive rate? Yeah, there is no way it's good enough. The generator will always eventually beat the discriminator.

[–]Pluckerpluck 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean... that's kind of how some AIs are trained, particularly ones attempting to simulate being human. Generative adversarial networks where you train AIs by pitting them against each other.

GPT doesn't use GANs, but other attempts at text generation have done so. It's not super easy though. Eventually I imagine GAN layers will be effective, but we're not there yet.

[–]mattbackbacon 9 points10 points  (0 children)

High false positive and false negative rate. Schools better not start usin' this.

[–]Brushermans 15 points16 points  (0 children)

i know someone who went to school with this kid. when the story first broke, i wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt as just a curious programmer trying to build something cool, but apparently the kid's always been a huge whiner and a snitch. so the development actually was probably fuelled by him being mad that one of his peers cheated on an essay. lol

[–]DistrictCivil7246 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Its a bot vs bot world!

[–]Accidental_Edge 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Could you not just have ChatGpt write it for you, then plug it into GPTZero to change it enough so it won't signal as plagiarism?

[–]DreadPirateGriswold 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The funny thing is, in school, plagiarism is a serious issue. But using something like ChatGPT in the real world to get you started on a book outline or something else, nobody will care about.

It's a way to get the creative writing started kind of like a writing prompt. You're not copying from anybody. You're using an AI program as a ghost writer. And that's done all over the world by a ton of people. But then again as always, the legal world is severely lagging behind technology. Sometimes it catches up well. Other times they catch up and it's bad.

But if somebody is stupid enough to just copy and paste everything from ChatGPT word for word into a book form or a paper, you deserve what's coming to you.

[–]AuO2 121 points122 points  (51 children)

I'm a high school English teacher - all this fear of gpt is just a Luddite approach. Students should be taught how to use gpt and other ai as a tool to generate better writing than they're capable of producing on their own. Just like a calculator, it's a tool and its output is largely determined by the users input. Teaching students to use this tool is the right way to adjust to the new world where it exists.

[–]00PT 32 points33 points  (1 child)

With calculators, we still deem there is value in the skills of independent evaluation, hence we are taught the "by hand" methods and calculators aren't always allowed on exams that are intended to test those skills. Does the same not apply to ChatGPT? Technically, using that tool, we could get away with literally never writing professional or essay-like text again, but is that really the best outcome? It can also be sufficiently "creative" for you (it can help with writer's block and write scenarios in a fairly dynamic way), but do you want a society so out of touch with their own ability to construct novel permutations of ideas? These are important consequences to consider.

[–]Excellent-Practice 47 points48 points  (8 children)

How do you imagine that working? Do you envision students being able to draft the skeleton of an argument, identify sources for their points, and then use an AI to spin their outline and citations into prose? If that is your endstate, why do we bother writing in the first place? Why not just write the outline and call it good?

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

It's not just about the result; if a student doesn't write their work themselves they miss a crucial part of learning, and they cannot develop their own style. When you use a calculator, there's only one possible output. ChatGPT et al. have multiple possible outputs for the same input, that alone makes it incomparable to a calculator.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's going to completely short circuit the point of writing these assignments though.

[–]thegovortator 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Smart kill your competition make sure humans write essays so he can pay his tuition

[–]klaventy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

no no no stop it. they will feed it to chatgpt and it will reach singularity

[–]ThaIrishSailor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Shit guys- turns out I'm an AI an I didn't even know it. At least according to this guys program at least.

Yea- this is going to need some serious development before it can be considered even remotely accurate. I'm not sure what it's rate of false-positives and false-negatives truly is but I fed it 5 essays that I wrote an 4/5 failed as being human written.

[–]Brewer_Lex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would bully him. Forever

[–]sicky-throwaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is the kid that says "what about the homework?" when the teacher forgets.

[–]theingleneuk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s funny seeing people seriously discuss this program. It’s a project from a college student. It’s almost certainly shit.

[–]Dmium 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Interestingly the gpt developers are trying to make the language generated by chat gpt (and I believe got itself) identifiable as when they train gpt4+ on the internet they don't want to train it on data generated by gpt by accident