Computing Reviews
Today's Issue Hot Topics Search Browse Recommended My Account Log In
Review Help
Search
The science of detecting LLM-generated text
Tang R., Chuang Y., Hu X. Communications of the ACM67 (4):50-59,2024.Type:Article
Date Reviewed: Nov 4 2024

While large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT can assist writers with editing, they might hinder students from learning to generate ideas or write creatively.

This article surveys the current state of algorithms for detecting LLM-generated content. Given that both LLMs and detection algorithms are rapidly evolving fields, the authors present the concepts with references, avoiding mathematical explanations in order to cater to both nontechnical readers and researchers in machine learning. However, many of the ideas have become outdated due to the field’s dynamic nature.

The article categorizes detection algorithms into black-box and white-box types. White-box algorithms require access to the LLM’s development environment, while black-box algorithms do not. With new LLMs being released frequently, white-box algorithms are primarily of academic interest and are not practically useful. For black-box detection, feature selection includes principles like Zipf’s law, linguistic patterns, sentiment analysis, and the low perplexity score of LLM-generated content. It also covers classification models using support vector machines (SVMs), random forests, and deep learning with neural networks.

OpenAI [1], the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [2], Syracuse University [3], and other institutions have concluded that it is impossible to detect AI-generated text without false positives, prompting them to explore alternative methods for evaluating students. Consequently, readers may not find practical solutions in this article, though it offers valuable academic insights. However, Hu et al.’s recent paper [4] shows promise (and references GLTR, an older related tool).

In conclusion, this well-written article provides an excellent introduction to this emerging field.

Reviewer:  Subhankar Ray Review #: CR147834
1) Coldewey, D. OpenAI scuttles AI-written text detector over “low rate of accuracy.” TechCrunch, (July 25, 2023), https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/25/openai-scuttles-ai-written-text-detector-over-low-rate-of-accuracy/.
2) AI detectors don’t work. Here’s what to do instead. MIT Sloan Teaching & Learning Technologies (Accessed Oct. 30, 2024), https://mitsloanedtech.mit.edu/ai/teach/ai-detectors-dont-work/.
3) Detecting AI created content. Syracuse University ITS & Online Learning Services (Oct. 14, 2024), https://su-jsm.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/blackboard01/pages/154381741/Detecting+AI+Created+Content.
4) Hu, X.; Chen, P.-Y.; Ho, T.-Y. RADAR: robust AI-text detection via adversarial learning. In 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, (2024), Article No.: 662.
Bookmark and Share
 
Natural Language (H.5.2 ... )
 
 
Learning (I.2.6 )
 
Would you recommend this review?
yes
no
Other reviews under "Natural Language": Date
Designing effective speech interfaces
Weinschenk S., Barker D., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2000.  405, Type: Book (9780471375456)
Jun 1 2000
Spoken dialogue technology: enabling the conversational user interface
McTear M. ACM Computing Surveys 34(1): 90-169, 2002. Type: Article
Jul 26 2002
Limitations of concurrency in transaction processing
Franaszek P., Robinson J. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 10(1): 1-28, 1985. Type: Article
Jan 1 1986
more...

E-Mail This Printer-Friendly
Send Your Comments
Contact Us
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.   Copyright 1999-2024 ThinkLoud®
Terms of Use
| Privacy Policy