Quote:
Originally Posted by Quoth
No, Courts use expert humans, not software detection.
It's a bad look to be an apologist for a cultural parasite part funded by Microsoft. It's not even any use for search or translation.
|
I'm not really concerned with how I look (my lack of fashion sense would be clear evidence of this) nor do I feel any desire to defend or justify chatGPT (and certainly not Micro$oft). I'm simply expressing an opinion I believe to be true, always content in being an honest pariah over a popular liar.
As systems like chatGPT evolve, the content they output will become increasingly complex to the point where the definitions used to identify AI generated content will start to be triggered by a growing percentage of human generated content. Computer algorithms are already superior at weeding out AI from human generated content, so the "expert humans" in Courts will be software devs with verdicts based on statistical data generated by the detection algorithms.
We can all think of two books/movies that have very similar themes, narrative and archetypes without thinking one was plagiarised by the other. Inspired perhaps? I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an AI system could adapt one story enough as to appear like new albeit similar content in the same way.