Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on handmade.social.
handmade.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
handmade.social is for all handmade artisans to create accounts for their Etsy and other handmade business shops.

Administered by:

Server stats:

36
active users

handmade.social: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.7

#plagiarism

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Public *
Dave Rahardja

This post by photographer Jingna Zhang resonates with me.

#AI art is devoid of humanity, intention, and backstory. It’s a shallow remix of human works, designed to be consumed and discarded, grinding human creation down into a sandy paste, to be re-extruded into grotesque displays. It’s the opposite of what makes art so valuable.

#aiArt #art #plagiarism #artist

(alt text continues)

A Facebook post by Jingna Zhang. Shown is a photograph of a pale woman with closed eyes and dark red lips covered in flower petals. Next to it is a prompt: “Make her eyes open. Make the image very similar, from the the colors, composition, the tone, the feel, including the frozen eyebrows, make it as similar as possible.”, followed by an AI-generated facsimile that is similar, but with eyes open. The post reads: Someone passed my photo through OpenAI's new image model, and no matter their intentions being well-meaning, seeing this as the original artist just makes me feel like shit. I did this series when my work wasn't being as accepted and was viewed as neither commercial nor fine art enough for either worlds. So I shot in my apartment, with flowers one of the few props I could afford. And for this shoot I sat with a team and applied petals onto the model, one by one. The final work is a crystallization of that experience and memory of those times, it's proof of the days l'd lived. An Al didn't sit there placing petals onto my model, and it feels like an insult to the memory when people go "Al can do this!", like no actually, I did that.
Public
Ian Rose

Have you published a book? Here's how to check if Meta stole it for their dumb AI. Literally every traditionally published author I could think of is here.

I guess there's one upside to me not publishing a book yet, but it's not super consoling.

#books #plagiarism #ai #LeaveMeta

theatlantic.com/technology/arc

The Atlantic · Search LibGen, the Pirated-Books Database That Meta Used to Train AIBy Alex Reisner
Public
Christopher Kyba

This is weird, two papers with the same name. The new one appears to be a plagiarized version of the old one, but the text is different. (Perhaps edited with a LLM?)

What do you think is the point here - is the idea to siphon off citations intended for the other paper? Are the authors real, or is the whole thing just made up as fake data for a predatory journal?

Why change the text, but not the title?

Title page of original paper from 2021
Title page of new paper from 2024 (with same title).
Figure 1 from the original paper.
Figure 1 from the "new" paper, which is identical Figure 1 from the original paper.
#Academia#Plagiarism#AcademicPublishing
Continued thread
Public *
petersuber

Update. More evidence that this fear has come true.
bloomberg.com/news/features/20

"Even…a small error rate can quickly add up, given the vast number of student assignments each year, with potentially devastating consequences for students who are falsely flagged."

Bloomberg · Do AI Detectors Work? Students Face False Cheating AccusationsBy Jackie Davalos
#AI#LLMs#Plagiarism
Continued thread
Public
Oliver Sampson

Some sites, for example @404mediaco*, specifically use the email login window. even for free content, as an anti- #AI scraping mechanism, after #perplexity_ai was caught reproducing news articles whole hog.

wired.com/story/perplexity-pla

What was once an offensive tactic to the end-user is now a defensive maneuver against exploitation from the #plagiarism factories.

It's just more collateral damage in the spiral of fuckery.

*I subscribe; you should, too.

Continued thread
Public *
petersuber

Update. Here's another study showing that tools to detect #AI-written text are easy to fool with "simple techniques to manipulate the AI generated content." But this one goes a step further and makes the right recommendation for teachers and schools. "GenAI tools and detectors…cannot currently be recommended for determining academic integrity violations due to accuracy limitations and the potential for false accusation."
educationaltechnologyjournal.s

SpringerOpenSimple techniques to bypass GenAI text detectors: implications for inclusive education - International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher EducationThis study investigates the efficacy of six major Generative AI (GenAI) text detectors when confronted with machine-generated content modified to evade detection (n = 805). We compare these detectors to assess their reliability in identifying AI-generated text in educational settings, where they are increasingly used to address academic integrity concerns. Results show significant reductions in detector accuracy (17.4%) when faced with simple techniques to manipulate the AI generated content. The varying performances of GenAI tools and detectors indicate they cannot currently be recommended for determining academic integrity violations due to accuracy limitations and the potential for false accusation which undermines inclusive and fair assessment practices. However, these tools may support learning and academic integrity when used non-punitively. This study aims to guide educators and institutions in the critical implementation of AI text detectors in higher education, highlighting the importance of exploring alternatives to maintain inclusivity in the face of emerging technologies.
#Education#Plagiarism
Public
Hugo Labrande

I am currently writing a #cento, i.e. a #textadventure where every sentence is taken from another text adventure. The biggest work of #plagiarism ever written 😉

This hinges on dumping the full text for 5000+ games (hooray for stable, documented formats/engines!), then having a tool to sift through them. There's also lots of game design constraints that come with it. It's super fun!

I'm hoping to post more about it as I ramp up in the next few months 😀

Screenshot of a tool similar to a search engine, with one column showing sentences and the other the text adventure they were taken from, as well as helpful "Copy" buttons.
Continued thread
Public *
petersuber

Update. Of course teachers sometimes make false accusations of #plagiarism even without relying on imperfect tools. Now that they're on the lookout for #AI-generated submissions, the rate might increase.

New study: "When given a mixture of original and general abstracts, blinded human reviewers correctly identified 68% of generated abstracts as…generated by ChatGPT, but incorrectly identified 14% of original abstracts as being generated."
nature.com/articles/s41746-023

#academia
@academicchatter

NatureComparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers - npj Digital MedicineLarge language models such as ChatGPT can produce increasingly realistic text, with unknown information on the accuracy and integrity of using these models in scientific writing. We gathered fifth research abstracts from five high-impact factor medical journals and asked ChatGPT to generate research abstracts based on their titles and journals. Most generated abstracts were detected using an AI output detector, ‘GPT-2 Output Detector’, with % ‘fake’ scores (higher meaning more likely to be generated) of median [interquartile range] of 99.98% ‘fake’ [12.73%, 99.98%] compared with median 0.02% [IQR 0.02%, 0.09%] for the original abstracts. The AUROC of the AI output detector was 0.94. Generated abstracts scored lower than original abstracts when run through a plagiarism detector website and iThenticate (higher scores meaning more matching text found). When given a mixture of original and general abstracts, blinded human reviewers correctly identified 68% of generated abstracts as being generated by ChatGPT, but incorrectly identified 14% of original abstracts as being generated. Reviewers indicated that it was surprisingly difficult to differentiate between the two, though abstracts they suspected were generated were vaguer and more formulaic. ChatGPT writes believable scientific abstracts, though with completely generated data. Depending on publisher-specific guidelines, AI output detectors may serve as an editorial tool to help maintain scientific standards. The boundaries of ethical and acceptable use of large language models to help scientific writing are still being discussed, and different journals and conferences are adopting varying policies.
SearchLive feeds
About