Philosophy, Software

No way to recognize AI generated text

Whatever I wrote before different methods to detect AI written text (using AI Text Classifer, GPTZero, Originality.AI…) seems now to be too optimistic. OpenAI even reports that AI detectors do not work at all

While some (including OpenAI) have released tools that purport to detect AI-generated content, none of these have proven to reliably distinguish between AI-generated and human-generated content.
Additionally, ChatGPT has no “knowledge” of what content could be AI-generated. It will sometimes make up responses to questions like “did you write this [essay]?” or “could this have been written by AI?” These responses are random and have no basis in fact.
…
When we at OpenAI tried to train an AI-generated content detector, we found that it labeled human-written text like Shakespeare and the Declaration of Independence as AI-generated.
…
Even if these tools could accurately identify AI-generated content (which they cannot yet), students can make small edits to evade detection.

BUT – according to a recent Copyleaks study, use of AI runs at high risk of plagiarizing earlier text that has been used to train the AI model. So it will be dangerous for everybody who is trying to cheat.

https://copyleaks.com/blog/copyleaks-ai-plagiarism-analysis-report

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch| Illumina 1G Solexa roadshow| Researchers ranked| Image, text and data forensics| How to scrape a website with R I: Using a browser generated cookie|

Software

Suffer fools gladly

which is from the letter by Saint Paul in his second letter to the Church at Corinth (chapter 11) while today’s quote “neither suffers fools” is adapted from Walter Isaacson’s biography on “Elon Musk” published today

In the rarefied fraternity of people who have held the title of richest person on Earth, Musk and Gates have some similarities. Both have analytic minds, an ability to laser-focus, and an intellectual surety that edges into arrogance. Neither suffers fools. All of these traits made it likely they would eventually clash, which is what happened when Musk began giving Gates a tour of the factory.

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch| Data doesn’t suffer| Käufliche Wissenschaft| Believe it or not – Genetic testing is not ready for widespread use| Organized ! Scepticism !! 2019 !!!|

Allergy, Software

Data security nightmare

A Mozilla Foundation analysis

The car brands we researched are terrible at privacy and security Why are cars we researched so bad at privacy? And how did they fall so far below our standards? Let us count the ways […] We reviewed 25 car brands in our research and we handed out 25 “dings” for how those companies collect and use data and personal information. That’s right: every car brand we looked at collects more personal data than necessary and uses that information for a reason other than to operate your vehicle and manage their relationship with you.

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch| Optimized data security under Snow Leopard| Thunderbird security improved| Rolling in the deep| Link to nightmare|

Joke

The dark factor

It seems that my dark factor is below average…

https://www.darkfactor.org defines the score as “the general tendency to maximize one’s individual utility — disregarding, accepting, or malevolently provoking disutility for others —, accompanied by beliefs that serve as justifications.”

Related posts: What to do when you disagree with your PI| RNA genes – dark matter of human biology?| Der chinesische Menschenversuch| News about the H factor| Avoid browser flickering with dark backgrounds|

Philosophy

Science is great but scientists are still people

Time to read again the famous Kornberg article

In parlous times, some truths need to be remembered and repeated. When science is under attack from many quarters, we need to be reminded of the distinctions between the extraordinary power of science and the fallibility of those who practice it. We are aware of prodigious feats in the arts, law, and religion that endure for ages. Yet none of these disciplines offer individuals, as science does, the opportunity to contribute to a progressive understanding of nature. In persuading the public to support scientists in their attempts to achieve a more rational and effective understand-ing of ourselves and of the world about us, we must be clear in distinguishing the uniqueness of science as a practice from the human qualities of its practitioners.

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch| The source of our power| At what age do scientists tend to produce great ideas?| FGA| Fund the best science, by the best scientists|

Philosophy

FOGD

Die DFG hat etwas Neues (FAZ)

„FOGD“, also „Forschungsorientierte Gleichstellungs- und Diversitätsstandards“. Man ist auf den regenbogenbunten Zug der Diversity aufgesprungen. Wir zitieren, in Bezug auf FOGD, von den Internetseiten der DFG: „In den Blick zu nehmen sind […] Diversitätsdimensionen, wie Geschlecht und geschlechtliche Identität, sexuelle Orientierung, Alter, ethnische Herkunft und Nationalität, soziale Herkunft (beispielsweise unter folgenden Aspekten: ökonomische Situation, Herkunft aus nicht-akademischer Familie, Migrationsgeschichte), Religion und Weltanschauung, Behinderung oder chronische/langwierige Erkrankung. Auch das Zusammenkommen mehrerer Unterschiedsdimensionen in einer Person (Intersektionalität und seine Bedeutung) sollte berücksichtigt werden.“

Nun sind also nach Saad , Jäger und Florin, auch Pfeilschifter und Wicht an dem Thema angelangt

Das Diversitätsmanagement schlägt um in eine neue Totalität, nämlich den hobbesschen bellum omnium contra omnes, den Kampf um das jeweils schlagkräftigste (Opfer-)Narrativ und um die Macht über die Konstruktion der dazugehörigen Sachverhalte

wobei die Inhalte sekundär sind.

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch| Best of — Heinrich Heine [German]| Inkubationszeit des Coronavirus| Ralf Frisch und sein “Fuck you Greta” Artikel auf Zeitzeichen| Ach je, Herr Urban|

Genetics, Philosophy

I never read the introduction of an article

I never read the introduction of an article, seldom the discussion section, but I always scan the methods and sometimes (if the methods warrant it) also the tables and figures. It seems that I am not alone here.

The survey indicated that individuals at different career stages valued different sections of scientific papers, and skill in reading the results section develops slowly over the course of an academic career.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189753

So why do we still write papers with an introduction that is longer than 1 sentence?

Related posts: Der chinesische Menschenversuch| Is there an association of CARD15 variants with allergy?| Too much to read too little time| < I often only have time to read abstracts >| First major publisher releases article metrics|