I see their use is more common now.
Peeps are paranoid about commodification; these are the algorithms and heuristics which linguistics has toppled too. And now they're checking through this. This has been checked adversarially, intuitively and counter-intuitively through a Socratic construction, with some autocomplete along with some other thoughts.
Pangram and others don't work. Or the self-abnegation of personal responsibility. Shall I quote?
Anyhow, here are two articles on why they are not to be trusted. Oh yeah, did I tell you the classifiers don't work in and of themselves? Well, you are the product. More on the math here.
Other the times, I won't ad hominion him on other bad essays.
Since this is continue with Sam Illingsworth's notes, the bias of these.
"Even a perfect detector would be the wrong tool
Now grant the impossible. Imagine a detector that worked flawlessly tomorrow.
I would still argue against it, for a reason that has nothing to do with accuracy.
The moment you put a detector between a teacher and a student, you change what a teacher is. You turn an educator into a police officer. The work of teaching is to be a co-creator of knowledge alongside the student, beside them while they struggle toward understanding. A detector makes suspicion the default setting. Every essay arrives presumed guilty.
That is not the job I signed up for. I did not become an educator to run my students’ words through a lie detector and wait for a number.
The evidence backs the instinct. I read every public UK university AI policy I could find, 96 of them, for a HEPI policy note this year. On a close reading of a sample, the language of education sat over an architecture of detection and surveillance. And two in five universities had no public AI policy at all. The machinery of policing arrived before the conversation about learning had even started.
You cannot police a student into learning. Detection keeps asking teachers to try."
This tech blogger knows that moral panic won't last.
This was the earlier with how it interconnects with the witch hunts
(Off Tangent, he does try the cult thing; that's a fandom thing.)
Wow, look at that math.
Including a linguistic lesson on negative construction.
“It's not X. It's why” is a linguistic construction, more specifically, a “contrastive negation followed by a corrective assertion.” It's part of a rich “grammatical context for negated restrictives in English.” Olli O. Silvennoinen wrote an entire doctoral dissertation of 131 pages on contrastive negation.Other the times, I won't ad hominion him on other bad essays.
Since this is continue with Sam Illingsworth's notes, the bias of these.
"Even a perfect detector would be the wrong tool
Now grant the impossible. Imagine a detector that worked flawlessly tomorrow.
I would still argue against it, for a reason that has nothing to do with accuracy.
The moment you put a detector between a teacher and a student, you change what a teacher is. You turn an educator into a police officer. The work of teaching is to be a co-creator of knowledge alongside the student, beside them while they struggle toward understanding. A detector makes suspicion the default setting. Every essay arrives presumed guilty.
That is not the job I signed up for. I did not become an educator to run my students’ words through a lie detector and wait for a number.
The evidence backs the instinct. I read every public UK university AI policy I could find, 96 of them, for a HEPI policy note this year. On a close reading of a sample, the language of education sat over an architecture of detection and surveillance. And two in five universities had no public AI policy at all. The machinery of policing arrived before the conversation about learning had even started.
You cannot police a student into learning. Detection keeps asking teachers to try."
"Moral panics are largely temporary. Almost everything we were sure would rot our culture, our brands, and the world around us became background noise within a generation. Calculators were going to destroy math; now a kid pulls out a phone to split a bill, and nobody bats an eye. Spell-check was a crutch that would make us all illiterate, and Wikipedia was not a real source, and typing out your essay instead of handwriting it meant you hadn’t learned a thing, and Photoshop meant you could never trust an image again, and Auto-tune was the death of music. Every one of these things caused a moral panic, with op-eds and hand wringing, and - for better, and in some cases absolutely for worse - every one of them is now so normal that the panic feels archaic."
"No, the folks getting hurt are the writers. Not only the ones who are tarred - all of us. Every single ___-forsaken one of us. We are all made smaller by the pursuit of unproven and unprovable purity. Whether Ballard used AI or not (and she says she didn’t, and naive or not I’m inclined to throw my cynicism to the wind and just take her at face value, and you can mock me if you like), the punishment landed before any verdict was reached, because no verdict can ever be reached. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. Never beyond a reasonable doubt.
She’s not going to be the last. This whole setup, where anyone can accuse any writer of using AI based on gut feeling, and broken detection tools get treated as proof and publishers fold at the first hint of controversy because the PR cost outweighs the book’s revenue, is going to grind up a lot of people into a fleshy, bloody, bony paste. Most of them will be small-time writers, debut authors, indie-published folks without the platform or the money to fight back."
(Off Tangent, he does try the cult thing; that's a fandom thing.)
So, what do we do? Trust, trust that it is. (I wonder how much that paradox catches on)