People somehow fail to realize that the AI checker is also AI which is basically just an electric dumbass
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
523 points (99.2% liked)
196
5947 readers
1821 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
tools like these are used to reject CVs and grade school papers btw
no matter how much ai is trash do NOT use ai checkers, they do not work
Yep, they’re all trash and should not be relied upon.
I got anywhere from 35% to 70% AI generated results on a book I wrote in 2019, before AI was even released.
eta: it’s not about plagiarism, either. I also ran my novel through plagiarism checkers, since it’s easy to accidentally write passages similar to existing work. 0% on those, but high numbers in the AI checkers.
Seems like AI was trained on your book
I had to write a short story for English literature class in 2006 and I still have the file. Apparently over half of that is AI generated, which is pretty impressive on my part I must say.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I witnessed an interaction where a grad school professor used AI detector and threatened to fail a student for submitting "AI generated" paper. It was so stupid, even after showing them how if you just add a few spelling mistakes the detection says human written, or even putting their own email in AI detector to show an example. It's like the saying "little knowledge is dangerous"
Yeah these are the kind of awful situations that will probably happen way more often as people turn to AI detectors to "find out" if someone is using AI not realizing that they aren't completely accurate, or even remotely accurate.
This is the Dunning Kruger era.
When I was at university I was pretty belligerent and if a professor tried that on me I'd have reported them for academic misconduct. They should be grading in the damn papers themselves, if they're not going to do that then what is the point in them?
Yeah, LLM-based checkers will still have LLM-based problems, most notably being incapable of true analysis, which is the whole point of an AI checker. It's just the same text predictor shit.
Oh and also there's an arms race where generative AI has the advantage because eventually it will be capable of generating things entirely indistinguishable from what a human would make (though it will still be susceptible to the hallucinations and errors it's already famous for).
That sucks. I had a hunch that my above-average level in french, my native language, (not just according to me, but also... almost all of my French teachers throughout my entire education) might be tripping these...
ESPECIALLY don't use the "ai text humanizer" function of one that's absolutely certain that RL authors were AI 🤦🏻
load more comments
(7 replies)
LLMs are predictive models. They scraped as much text as possible to create a model that predicts the next word accurately. To generate text, the LLM assembles a sequence of likely next words.
That exact same sort of model can be turned around and asked, how closely did the actual next word match the predicted one? Good test for training the LLM. A better model will make more accurate predictions.
AI checkers are usually doing that test. Does the real text match what the AI predicted? It sounds like a test of the text, but it really isn't. In this case, yes. Of course an AI trained on Mary Shelly's Frankenstein can accurately predict the next word of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. It has the whole book memorized, if it were accurate to anthropomorphize computer code.
So the "checker" calls it AI generated. These checkers don't work.
Actually they're not doing that check as they don't have access to the models, they're running their own statistical transformer that asks "how closely does this match our database"?
Her defense was that it wasn't an "artificial" intelligence: "It's alive. It's alive!"
Still no statement from Mary. Sounds like she is guilty and doesn’t know how to respond.
So the AI thinks this human-made text is actually AI-made and offers an AI tool that'll turn this human-made text into an AI-made text that'll appear more human than the human-made text? I wonder how it'd rewrite this paragraph.
Sometimes it feels like the formal texts I write (like anything I write in the context of a job application) sound a bit like AI, but I just try to immitate the dumb way HR people write their job postings.
I think this his the most convincing proof that time travel is possible I've seen so far.
Occam would probably punch you for ignoring his razor so thoroughly 😄
Occam: I will cut you
This is why I named my cat Occam.
She used the inhouse LLM abby normal.
Perhaps that so many people have quoted that chapter in college and high school papers, book review and film reviews, and cultural criticism that maybe there is a weird "shoot the moon" situation where a "works of origin" begin to look like a "works of derivation".
Yeah, or perhaps there is no need to make up excuses for the Copyright Infringement, world bruning, infinite lying machine lying about what text is real vs generated by it. LLMs lie, LLM based LLM detectors lie about lies.
Frankenstein is out of copyright.
I would be unsurprised if you couldn't tease out the entire book. I wonder if Mary Shelly was a fan of dashes.
Being out of copyright is kinda irrelevant. There are lawsuits right now, because the AI firms apparently fed the AI's tons of copyrighted books.
It is an it ist. Those lawsuits mean they at least try to stop it from producing copyrighted work. They won't make Simpsons characters or produce anything from the house of mouse without major cajoling or some trickery in the prompt.
For the text from Frankenstein they are not even going to try.
Incidentally after writing this content I tried to get chatgpt to reproduce the first paragraph of chapter 3. It refused and offered a summary. I "reminded" it that the book is in the public domain and then it reproduced it without issue.
They still obviously trained it on the copyrighted text. Which I think is what some claim is illegal without payment?
Mind you, I don't think copyright should cover that, for text at least. It is not in society's interest.
I tried to get chatgpt to reproduce the first paragraph of chapter 3. It refused and offered a summary. I “reminded” it that the book is in the public domain and then it reproduced it without issue.
I bet you could do exactly the same thing for a book that's still copyrighted.
I did see posts of someone doing it with Harry Potter but I think it took a little more effort
Sometimes I think these things just give you random numbers. Would you be able to tell if they did?
If you checked multiple times (while deleting or randomizing browser identification Data) you would. but most people don't. They just check once then go argue with someone or go say that so and so blog is using AI or breath a sigh of relief if it says "not AI". A lot of them see AI checkers as infallible when they are AI models themselves, which don't really know the difference.
It is just comparing against well-known public texts available to AI crawlers.
load more comments
(8 replies)
I mean, scanning a well known piece of literature which likely exists online in its entirety is an obvious way to generate a false positive. This doesn't mean that these tools can't be useful. You need to understand how to use them. When it's appropriate, what context, how much trust to attribute to it, and what other tools you might use along side it. At the end of the day, it's up to the human to be informed, critical, and to form reasonable suspicions or judgements. This isn't novel to AI use, but most tools.
view more: next ›