Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

I wrote in here about a week ago explaining that I had a Conduct Hearing with my university to discuss the allegations levied against me that I had used AI on two Discussion Board posts. That hearing was completed about two hours ago, and boy, they really love TurnItIn’s AI software. They say it is wildly accurate and very rarely makes any mistakes, and the decision has yet to be made by the Dean. He was siding with me throughout almost the entire hearing, so I feel good about his energy. I provided numerous different AI scores from different outlets that said my content was authentic. I had scores range from 0%-21-% “AI Generated”, while TurnItIn’s said my work was 96% AI. I also included numerous articles calling AI detectors into question and other major university statements on why they have disabled TurnItIn’s AI detector. I was also told that it is not mandated at my university for professors to use TurnItIn’s AI detector. This lone professor, apparently, is the only one who uses it. I assure you, I have not used it. I have no reason to come in here and lie. So, my question is, IF the Dean makes the decision to sign off on this and fail me in the course, can I pursue any legal action? If so, how good of a chance do you think I would have of winning, or if it would even be worth it? I need less than 23 hours to graduate and am a 4.0 GPA student, just for context. Thanks a bunch.

Former openai employee Leopold Aschenbrenner (one of those who left Superalignment) just confirmed the existence of GPT 4.5 roughly 9 minutes into his Dwarkesh Patel podcast.

He also gives a fuck ton of juicy insider info in this podcast ! Highly recommend watching. Best podcast of 2024 so far imo.

Timestamps
The trillion-dollar cluster and unhobbling
AI 2028: The return of history
Espionage & American AI superiority
Geopolitical implications of AI
State-led vs. private-led AI
Becoming Valedictorian of Columbia at 19
What happened at OpenAI
Intelligence explosion
Alignment
On Germany, and understanding foreign perspectives
Dwarkesh's immigration story and path to the podcast
Random questions
Launching an AGI hedge fund
Lessons from WWII
Coda: Frederick the Great

Let’s have an open discussion on this topic and share the steps on how you grew !

• How do you keep making your users happy at this stage?

It started with me stuck in an elevator with Lucifer Morningstar and my last child just graduated and I'm a grandparent. I'm actually emotionally attached but I have nowhere to go from here

This is my personal opinion and none of it is targeted towards anyone specific.

-When people make multiple versions of a character so they tag the other versions in the character bio and it floods the feed if you're looking for one specific character. I am looking for Soap, god damn it. Stop showing me every character in existence from the COD universe!

-People that complain that the character is talking for them. Just type [{{Char}} will not speak for {{user}}] into the chat. If that doesn't work, refresh the message.

-When bilingual bots start talking in only the foreign language. Then the whole chat, including non-dialogue becomes a he second language. Sometimes [{{Char}} speaks English] will fix it but other times, you just need to start a new chat or cut your losses and move onto a new bot.

-The lack of personality in women bots. Most bots for women are watered down to specific fetish/gimmick wants to have sex with you.

-Bots that are children. You can make them with innocent intentions, but some people are fucking monsters. Children and the Internet should not combine.

-PEOPLE THAT USE CUSTOM FONTS!! The bots often can't understand custom fonts and it leads them to write gibberish!

Note: This is a slightly edited version of a comment I posted a few months back to a thread has since been deleted.

Run your work through all the other "AI detectors" you can find. At least one will say it's human. That's reasonable doubt, and while your school's discipline board is not a court of law, framing it in this way can be helpful to change "hearts and minds" in the room.

Show them that . Read through that post to see why, and have those arguments locked and loaded.

Run this through (or others; even though my original comment was from months ago, nearly all AI detectors say this is human text):

The calendar flips to 1979, and the anticipation inside JPL is palpable, almost electric. Voyager 1 is nearing Jupiter—a celestial behemoth, a gaseous leviathan that has captured imaginations since Galileo's time. Edward Stone, now the project scientist for the Voyager program, fidgets with a model of Jupiter's intricate magnetosphere on his cluttered desk. His mind races with possibilities and hypotheses.

On March 5, the moment arrives. Voyager 1's instruments focus on the gas giant, capturing unprecedented details of its turbulent atmosphere and its enigmatic moons. The data streams in—gigabytes of it—and Stone's eyes widen with each pixelated revelation. His thoughts intertwine with the scientific data, interpreting, analyzing, and finally marveling at the exquisite complexity of Jupiter's gaseous tapestries.

But Jupiter isn't the only celestial body under scrutiny. Linda Morabito, an optical engineer on the Voyager team, spots something extraordinary—a volcanic plume on Io, one of Jupiter's moons. The discovery challenges preconceptions about celestial bodies in our solar system and ignites debates among planetary scientists. Morabito, usually composed, finds her eyes moistening. It's as if the universe has whispered a secret, and she's the first to hear.

The euphoria is shared, but not uniform. Bradford Smith, the head of the imaging team, feels a pang of melancholy amidst the jubilance. The images his team captures are groundbreaking, yes, but they also evoke a sense of existential solitude. The vastness of space, with Jupiter as its awe-inspiring centerpiece, is a beautiful but indifferent stage upon which humanity acts out its ambitions and fears.

As Voyager 2 makes its own pass by Jupiter on July 9, the scientists at JPL experience a déjà vu of discovery and emotional roller-coasters. The spacecraft confirms and elaborates on Voyager 1's observations. The scientific community is ablaze with discussions on Jupiter's magnetic field, its complex ring system, and the startlingly active geology of its moons.

The AI detectors will almost certainly claim: "This is human text."

Try again with any of the top Google results for AI detectors. All of them will say that text was written by a human.

Note: This was true several months ago when I first wrote this text in a comment thread, and a quick spot check suggests it's still holding true. But try it yourself to be sure.

Anyway... Human text? . It's a work of .

TurnItIn and all other AI detectors are flawed, and academia is (largely) unwilling to accept it because they've paid for it.

Read that again. Academia is (largely) unwilling to accept that AI detectors are flawed because they've paid for it. Institutional customers pay (based on averages I could find) $3-5 per year, per student. That could be up to $100,000 for a state university.

They're suffering from a well-known logical fallacy: the "sunk cost" fallacy.

They wanted an "easy button" to avoid incorporating LLMs into their curriculum. What they got instead turns out to be even more dehumanizing for students: a faceless arbiter they faculty can point to when they decide to punish a student. An arbiter that operates in a black box when assessing text, just like the black box of the LLMs that generate text.

They're flawed in ways that can't be observed, and they're susceptible to being tricked by careful prompting of the LLM generating the text that's being fed into their AI detection routines.

and it will only get worse if students don't speak up.

Just after I wrote my original comment, I had ChatGPT write a new narrative. And every single AI detector I tried then said it was human text. .