When I was in college I built a chess playing program that I couldn’t beat. It wasn’t very good, but it was much better than me. The trick is machine learning: teach it the rules, get it to play millions of games against itself and adjust its strategy after each game.
The AI can become better at a learnable skill than those who trained it because the AI can spend zillions of hours practicing
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It’s unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
dead-eyed stare in librarian
How could that even be true since it was humans thay trained ai. What a dumb statement ahh
When I was in college I built a chess playing program that I couldn’t beat. It wasn’t very good, but it was much better than me. The trick is machine learning: teach it the rules, get it to play millions of games against itself and adjust its strategy after each game.
The AI can become better at a learnable skill than those who trained it because the AI can spend zillions of hours practicing
Yes but thats not whats happening here. The base is created by using human data.
“thay”
Useful comment
AI detection by AI is not reliable. Lots of false negatives, and comparatively less but still too much reporting false positives to be reliable (and those are especially biased).
It’s unlikely to get better too. If AI was able to reliably detect AI output, why not use that to correct itself to be less AI-like? And where is the seemingly infinite money thrown at in this struggle?
You just described adversarial training, something I’ve been hearing about for at least a few years now.