Rohan Paul 批评对 AI 检测器 Pangram 的盲信
The same crowd that says never trust a model’s output without checking will paste a detector’s output as the final word. https://t.co/qK4cfoVBpZ
Rohan Paul 讽刺那些声称“模型输出必须核查”的人，却把检测器的输出当作最终结论。他引用的 Peyman Milanfar 帖子批评人们把 Pangram 当作不会出错的权威，用它给出的概率羞辱他人，并指出 Pangram 无法区分“人写后经 AI 编辑”与“完全由提示词生成”的文本。
查看原帖人们把 Pangram 当作绝无谬误的神谕。他们拿它的概率当武器，以某种任意的纯度标准去羞辱他人。讽刺的是，它大多是多余的：明显由 AI 生成的内容，不用它也能认出来。而对于更微妙的文字，Pangram 无法区分“由人写作、经 AI 编辑”的文本与“完全由提示词生成”的文本。 归根结底，@pangram 的目标是把人们对 AI 的焦虑变现——而不是保护创作的诚信。他们把一种虚假的二元确定性卖给那些轻信到足以无视概率的人。
查看原文
People treat Pangram as an infallible oracle. They weaponize its probabilities to shame others by some arbitrary purity standard. The irony is that it’s mostly redundant: obviously AI-generated stuff is already recognizable without it. And for more nuanced writing, Pangram fails to distinguish between text written by a human and edited by AI, vs text that is generated whole-cloth from a prompt. At the end of the day, @pangram ’s goal is about monetizing people’s anxiety about AI - it’s not about protecting creative integrity. They sell a false binary certainty to those gullible enough to ignore probabilities.
正文 · AI 翻译
那些声称“不核查就不能相信模型输出”的人，却会把检测器的输出当作最终结论。https://t.co/qK4cfoVBpZ