OpenAI has built a text watermarking method to detect ChatGPT-written content — company has mulled its release over the past year
OpenAI just needs to press a button and it will have a ChatGPT detector ready and available.
OpenAI has already built and tested a tool to detect whether any written content has been created using ChatGPT. But the Wall Street Journal reports that the company is holding back the tool from public release because of several concerns.
The tool adds a pattern to how the large language model (LLM) writes its output, allowing OpenAI to detect if ChatGPT created it. The pattern remains unnoticeable to humans, thereby not impacting the LLM’s quality. Internal documentation says that the tool is 99.9% effective in detecting ChatGPT’s output — but OpenAI has yet to release it.
While text watermarking is highly effective for detecting content written by ChatGPT, it cannot work with output from other LLMs like Gemini AI or Llama 3. Furthermore, this technique can be easily circumvented. For example, you can insert ChatGPT’s output in Google Translate, convert it to another language, and then back to English, effectively removing the watermarking.
It could even be as simple as asking the AI to insert a unique character, emoji, or even a short phrase between words and then deleting them later (via Microsoft Word’s Find and Replace function, for example) or asking another LLM to rephrase the entire output entirely is enough to break the detection tool.
Another point of contention OpenAI has on releasing the tool is that it says it could be biased against non-native English writers. The company previously released a generative AI text detection tool last year. Still, it only took seven months before OpenAI pulled the plug on it because of its low detection rate and propensity to deliver false positives. It even has led to the point that a professor once failed an entire class because all the submitted papers were inaccurately marked as AI-generated.
Furthermore, OpenAI also considers its customer base, with customer surveys showing that 69% of ChatGPT users believe that the tool would result in false accusations of AI cheating. 30% even said they would likely switch to a rival LLM if OpenAI deployed the tool. The company is facing another issue with the broad deployment of the ChatGPT detector, as other users could reverse engineer OpenAI’s watermarking technique and release a plug-in or app to neutralize it.
Nevertheless, OpenAI understands the risk that AI-generated content poses to society and has been looking at alternatives to the text watermarking technique. There’s also a demand for an AI detector, with internal data showing that 80% of people asked globally support its existence.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
It’s still a question of whether OpenAI will release its text watermarking tool and detector. However, it also understands that as one of the leading organizations in the development of AI, it must also take steps to ensure the responsible use of its tools. Sources say that OpenAI has, until this fall, to sway public opinion around AI transparency. We don’t know what this means, but there’s one thing we’re sure of: we must be critical of what we read and ensure we’re getting the truth.
Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
-
husker "For example, you can insert ChatGPT’s output in Google Translate, convert it to another language, and then back to English, effectively removing the watermarking."Reply
... and all semblance of good writing. -
velocityMarcus I rarely see any developments in regards to checks/balances for AI content. I know folks have been making "anti-AI" filters for their digital art, and there are sites that will help you find out whether or not something has been written by AI, but as far as internal solutions go, it's a bit refreshing to hear about this. The "99.9%" success rates and " by humans" is something I'd love to see for myself.Reply
In the eyes of a company, of course there's internal turmoil. Most folks will dodge AI written content if it's clear that it's written by an AI. If it was clear to the user right off the rip that they were reading something that was generated, they might just stop reading.
I think it begs the question - should companies creating AI be responsible for integrating systems that make it clear that the content an AI produces should be disclosed as generated? I think so. -
derekullo I've had chatgpt write dozens of versions of a paper for me.Reply
I then pick out the best parts of each one and stitch them together in my own words.
The entire reason for an LLM's existence is to emulate the writing style of humans.
Trying to prove that its writing style is not human is a fool's errand since they are only going to get better at it.
rephrase this in the words of a smart person. Frazier, Plato, Freud
I've utilized ChatGPT and other LLMs to generate multiple iterations of a paper, subsequently selecting the finest elements from each version and integrating them into my own composition.
The fundamental purpose of such a model is to mimic the nuanced and sophisticated writing styles of humans.
To challenge its capacity for human-like expression is an exercise in futility, as these models are destined to evolve and mirror our own linguistic patterns with increasing fidelity. -
cycro OpenAI doesn’t even have the best models anymore. They’re already falling behind. Adding watermarking would be the final blow to make people switch to better LLMs.Reply -
lete479 "Reply
a professor once failed an entire class because all the submitted papers were inaccurately marked as AI-generated."
The fact that a simple search shows this to be false make me believe that the whole article is false. I see no sources for the declares truths. Somehow some random guy just knows what ChatGPT is doing? I doubt it. -
Omniversum
Now, you see, that's weird.. Because I can easily find this fact(?) in several mainstream media.lete479 said:"
a professor once failed an entire class because all the submitted papers were inaccurately marked as AI-generated."
The fact that a simple search shows this to be false make me believe that the whole article is false. I see no sources for the declares truths. Somehow some random guy just knows what ChatGPT is doing? I doubt it.
So, please provide us with your sources that are claiming that this fact is untrue. -
lete479
“A&M-Commerce confirms that no students failed the class or were barred from graduating because of this issue,” the school noted. “Dr. Jared Mumm, the class professor, is working individually with students regarding their last written assignments. Some students received a temporary grade of ‘X’ — which indicates ‘incomplete’ — to allow the professor and students time to determine whether AI was used to write their assignments and, if so, at what level.” The university also confirmed that several students had been cleared of any academic dishonesty.Omniversum said:Now, you see, that's weird.. Because I can easily find this fact(?) in several mainstream media.
So, please provide us with your sources that are claiming that this fact is untrue.
Perhaps there is another university story that you've found? -
lemons123
you didn't even list a single LLM that is "better" than OpenAI'scycro said:OpenAI doesn’t even have the best models anymore. They’re already falling behind. Adding watermarking would be the final blow to make people switch to better LLMs. -
cycro
It’s hard to say “better” since there’s so many different use cases. The best attempt at ranking I’ve seen is the chatbot arena leaderboard: https://chat.lmsys.org/?leaderboardlemons123 said:you didn't even list a single LLM that is "better" than OpenAI's
Google currently holds the top spot. OpenAI’s best LLM currently ranks #2, with Anthropic and Meta close behind.
If you look at text embedding models, OpenAI doesn’t even rank in the top 20. My point is, they have no magic sauce. They don’t have a monopoly on good models anymore - they’re not even the current best in any category. There is no moat. I’m hoping and believe we’ll see more open models like Llama dominate in the future. -
TJ Hooker
All the articles I found link back to a single rolling stone article, which only has an anonymous redditor as a source. As lete479 mentions, that rolling stone article was updated with a statement from the university that contradicts the redditor's claims.Omniversum said:Now, you see, that's weird.. Because I can easily find this fact(?) in several mainstream media.
So, please provide us with your sources that are claiming that this fact is untrue.