Fiction written by artificial intelligence is easy to detect because it struggles with complex story structure and tends to moralize in clunky ways, according to a preprint study from researchers at University of Maryland, College Park and Google DeepMind. They found that AI fiction has tells that go beyond stereotypical overuse of em-dashes and other obvious AI tropes and have more to do with the formulaic nature of the text itself.
“AI stories over-explain themes and favor tidy, single-track plots while human stories frame protagonists’ choices as more morally ambiguous and have increased temporal complexity,” the study, which looked at more than 50,000 AI-generated short stories, found. “Claude produces notably flat event escalation, GPT over-indexes on dream sequences, and Gemini defaults to external character description. We find that AI-generated stories cluster in a shared region of narrative space, while human-authored stories exhibit greater diversity. More broadly, these results suggest that differences in underlying narrative construction, not just writing style, can be used to separate human-written original works from AI-generated fiction.”
Basically, AI-generated fiction sucks and at the moment is easy to detect. The typical method of detection involves looking for stylistic markers such as an abundance of em-dashes, the overuse of the word “delve,” or an obsession with goblins, but this project tried something different. “The idea for this project came because we are hoping to eventually move past plain text detection, into some sort of space where we can separate human ideas from AI-generated ideas,” Jenna Russell, a University of Maryland researcher and one of the study’s authors, told 404 Media. Russell is also an intern at the AI-detection company Pangram.
AI is still on training. It is either naive or wilful ignorance to think they are not being improved upon.
Even if the technology hasn’t plateaued, you’re still just going to get better and better autocorrect.
I’ve read several articles by people in the field who claim that no, the quirks AI has now, cannot be improved on much. Not with the LLM technology that is used now, it would be necessary to start over with a better method.
The only sensible comment here.
Yeah there are limitations with the current AI models, but it doesn’t mean there won’t be breakthrough at some stage. The renewable energy technologies also had limits ten years ago but those limits had been broken through to make it increasingly more efficient than before.
Well, but that’s not what I wrote.
I’m saying in general that detractors of AI think it won’t ever improve and hit its limit, but so were lots of technology before such as renewable energy technology.
Probably, but it’s not going to happen with LLMs. That’s quite a bit different from renewable energy where it was a question of refining existing technology.
I mean the technology for AI is there right now.
It’s naive to think that you can take something and feed it shit. Then, when it regurgitates out shit to you, it’ll give you caviar when you only continuously feed it shit.